vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP (AP) and Katapult Holdings, Inc. (KPLT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($104.4M vs $73.9M, roughly 1.4× Katapult Holdings, Inc.). Katapult Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 26.8% vs -55.2%, a 82.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Katapult Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (17.3% vs 11.5%). AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-64.0K vs $-12.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Katapult Holdings, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (6.6% 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...
Katapult Holdings, Inc. is a U.S.-based fintech company that provides accessible point-of-sale lease-to-purchase solutions for consumers with limited or no traditional credit history. It partners with a wide network of e-commerce platforms and brick-and-mortar retail merchants across segments including electronics, furniture and home goods to offer flexible payment plans for customers to obtain needed products.
AP vs KPLT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $104.4M | $73.9M |
| Net Profit | $-57.7M | $19.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | 15.6% |
| Operating Margin | -54.0% | -1.4% |
| Net Margin | -55.2% | 26.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.5% | 17.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1958.9% | 307.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.87 | $3.69 |
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 | $73.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $103.7M | $74.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $108.9M | $71.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.2M | $71.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.6M | $63.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $60.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.1M | $58.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $110.0M | $65.1M |
| Q4 25 | $-57.7M | $19.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.2M | $-4.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.3M | $-7.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1M | $-5.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1M | $-9.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.0M | $-8.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $-6.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.7M | $-570.0K |
| Q4 25 | — | 15.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 19.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 15.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 19.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 11.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 19.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 16.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 25.3% |
| Q4 25 | -54.0% | -1.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.8% | -2.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | -0.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | -7.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.0% | -7.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | -4.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.1% | 5.8% |
| Q4 25 | -55.2% | 26.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.1% | -6.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.7% | -10.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | -7.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | -15.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | -14.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | -11.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -2.5% | -0.9% |
| Q4 25 | $-2.87 | $3.69 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | $-0.94 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.36 | $-1.63 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.06 | $-1.23 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.16 | $-2.17 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.10 | $-2.05 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | $-1.61 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.14 | $-0.13 |
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 | $22.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $117.9M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $32.6M | $-38.1M |
| Total Assets | $495.4M | $107.9M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.61× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $10.7M | $22.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.0M | $3.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | $3.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.1M | $6.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.4M | $3.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $25.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9M | $33.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.8M | $31.2M |
| Q4 25 | $117.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $115.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $115.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $116.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $116.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $119.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $116.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | $32.6M | $-38.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.1M | $-58.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $62.7M | $-54.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.6M | $-51.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.9M | $-46.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.3M | $-40.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.0M | $-32.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $56.3M | $-27.5M |
| Q4 25 | $495.4M | $107.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $524.4M | $85.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $537.2M | $90.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $536.2M | $88.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $530.9M | $93.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $547.4M | $92.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $560.8M | $106.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $565.8M | $106.6M |
| Q4 25 | 3.61× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.98× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.85× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.78× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.98× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.89× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.06× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.06× | — |
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 | $-11.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-64.0K | $-12.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -0.1% | -16.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.7% | 0.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | -0.60× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-8.1M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $2.7M | $-11.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.3M | $4.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.3M | $-6.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.3M | $3.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5M | $-32.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.4M | $-5.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.3M | $-628.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.5M | $2.0M |
| Q4 25 | $-64.0K | $-12.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | $4.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-7.5M | $3.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7M | $-32.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.4M | $-5.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.0M | $-653.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | -0.1% | -16.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | 5.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.5% | 4.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | -51.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.1% | -9.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.5% | -1.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | 0.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | 0.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | -0.60× | ||
| 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% |
KPLT
Segment breakdown not available.
