vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP (AP) and Industrial Logistics Properties Trust (ILPT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Industrial Logistics Properties Trust is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($113.9M vs $104.4M, roughly 1.1× AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP). Industrial Logistics Properties Trust runs the higher net margin — -1.6% vs -55.2%, a 53.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.5% vs 3.1%). Industrial Logistics Properties Trust produced more free cash flow last quarter ($42.0M vs $-64.0K). Over the past eight quarters, Industrial Logistics Properties Trust's revenue compounded faster (0.7% CAGR vs -2.6%).
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation is a specialty steel manufacturer headquartered in Downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is one of several companies to bear the Ampco name, and it should not be confused with the Milwaukee-based copper base alloy producer, Ampco Metal Inc.; the Miami-based cabinetry company; the Swiss aluminum corporation; or the Dallas-based tool company. Ampco was formed in 1929 and is a conglomerate made up of several previously established small steel makers. Five small compa...
Industrial Logistics Properties Trust is a real estate investment trust that owns and operates a portfolio of industrial and logistics real estate assets primarily across the United States. Its holdings include distribution centers, warehouses, and last-mile delivery properties, serving e-commerce, retail, manufacturing and supply chain operators to meet their storage and logistics operation needs.
AP vs ILPT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $104.4M | $113.9M |
| Net Profit | $-57.7M | $-1.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -54.0% | -22.1% |
| Net Margin | -55.2% | -1.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.5% | 3.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1958.9% | 92.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.87 | $-0.02 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $104.4M | $113.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $103.7M | $110.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $108.9M | $112.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.2M | $111.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.6M | $110.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $108.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.1M | $110.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $110.0M | $112.2M |
| Q4 25 | $-57.7M | $-1.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.2M | $-21.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.3M | $-21.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1M | $-21.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1M | $-24.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.0M | $-25.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $-23.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.7M | $-23.4M |
| Q4 25 | -54.0% | -22.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | -29.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.8% | -30.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | -26.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | -31.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.0% | -33.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | -32.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.1% | -31.7% |
| Q4 25 | -55.2% | -1.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.1% | -19.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.7% | -19.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | -19.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | -21.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | -22.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | -20.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -2.5% | -20.9% |
| Q4 25 | $-2.87 | $-0.02 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | $-0.33 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.36 | $-0.32 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.06 | $-0.33 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.16 | $-0.37 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.10 | $-0.38 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | $-0.35 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.14 | $-0.36 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $10.7M | $94.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $117.9M | $4.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $32.6M | $489.7M |
| Total Assets | $495.4M | $5.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.61× | 8.56× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $10.7M | $94.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.0M | $83.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | $58.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.1M | $108.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.4M | $131.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $153.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9M | $146.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.8M | $128.4M |
| Q4 25 | $117.9M | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.0M | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $115.9M | $4.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $115.0M | $4.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $116.4M | $4.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $116.0M | $4.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $119.4M | $4.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $116.2M | $4.3B |
| Q4 25 | $32.6M | $489.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.1M | $494.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $62.7M | $519.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.6M | $539.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.9M | $562.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.3M | $585.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.0M | $618.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $56.3M | $643.2M |
| Q4 25 | $495.4M | $5.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $524.4M | $5.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $537.2M | $5.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $536.2M | $5.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $530.9M | $5.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $547.4M | $5.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $560.8M | $5.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $565.8M | $5.5B |
| Q4 25 | 3.61× | 8.56× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.98× | 8.49× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.85× | 8.09× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.78× | 7.96× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.98× | 7.65× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.89× | 7.35× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.06× | 6.96× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.06× | 6.70× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $2.7M | $60.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-64.0K | $42.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -0.1% | 36.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.7% | 16.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-8.1M | $79.8M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $2.7M | $60.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.3M | $22.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.3M | $18.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.3M | $11.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5M | $2.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.4M | $-3.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.3M | $10.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.5M | $8.0M |
| Q4 25 | $-64.0K | $42.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | $17.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.8M | $15.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-7.5M | $5.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7M | $-3.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.4M | $-5.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.0M | $9.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7M | $5.9M |
| Q4 25 | -0.1% | 36.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | 15.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.5% | 13.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.5% | 4.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | -3.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.1% | -5.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.5% | 8.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | 5.2% |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | 16.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | 4.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | 2.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | 5.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 5.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 2.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | 1.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | 1.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.62× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.40× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.64× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AP
| Forged And Cast Mill Rolls | $67.0M | 64% |
| Air Handling Systems | $14.3M | 14% |
| Heat Exchange Coils | $13.1M | 13% |
| Centrifugal Pumps | $10.3M | 10% |
| Forged Engineered Products | $4.0M | 4% |
ILPT
Segment breakdown not available.
