vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP (AP) and LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (LSCC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($145.8M vs $104.4M, roughly 1.4× AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP). LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP runs the higher net margin — -5.2% vs -55.2%, a 50.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.5% vs 9.3%). LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($44.0M vs $-64.0K). Over the past eight quarters, LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP's revenue compounded faster (8.4% 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...
Lattice Semiconductor Corporation is an American semiconductor company specializing in the design and manufacturing of low power field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). Headquartered in the Silicon Forest area of Hillsboro, Oregon, the company also has operations in San Jose, Calif., Shanghai, Manila, Penang, and Singapore. Lattice Semiconductor has more than 1000 employees and an annual revenue of more than $660 million as of 2022. The company was founded in 1983 and went public in 1989. It ...
AP vs LSCC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $104.4M | $145.8M |
| Net Profit | $-57.7M | $-7.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | 68.5% |
| Operating Margin | -54.0% | 30.7% |
| Net Margin | -55.2% | -5.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.5% | 9.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1958.9% | 14.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.87 | $-0.06 |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $145.8M | ||
| Q4 25 | $104.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $103.7M | $133.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $108.9M | $124.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.2M | $120.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.6M | $117.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $127.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.1M | $124.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | $-7.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | $-57.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.2M | $2.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.3M | $2.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1M | $5.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1M | $16.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.0M | $7.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $22.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | 68.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 67.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 68.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 68.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 61.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 69.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 68.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 25 | -54.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | -1.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.8% | 3.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | 5.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | -10.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.0% | 5.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | 18.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | -5.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | -55.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.1% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.7% | 2.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | 4.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | 14.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | 5.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 18.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | $-0.06 | ||
| Q4 25 | $-2.87 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | $0.02 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.36 | $0.02 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.06 | $0.04 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.16 | $0.12 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.10 | $0.05 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | $0.16 |
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 | $133.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $117.9M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $32.6M | $714.1M |
| Total Assets | $495.4M | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.61× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $133.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | $10.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.0M | $117.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | $107.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.1M | $127.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.4M | $136.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $124.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9M | $109.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| 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 26 | — | $714.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | $32.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.1M | $706.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $62.7M | $687.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.6M | $707.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.9M | $710.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.3M | $703.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.0M | $698.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | $883.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | $495.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $524.4M | $844.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $537.2M | $808.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $536.2M | $823.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $530.9M | $843.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $547.4M | $853.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $560.8M | $827.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| 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× | — |
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 | $57.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-64.0K | $44.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -0.1% | 30.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.7% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-8.1M | $153.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $57.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.3M | $47.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.3M | $38.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.3M | $31.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5M | $45.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.4M | $44.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.3M | $21.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | $44.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $-64.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | $34.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.8M | $31.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-7.5M | $23.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7M | $39.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.4M | $39.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.0M | $14.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | 30.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | -0.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | 25.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.5% | 25.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.5% | 19.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 33.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.1% | 31.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.5% | 11.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | 9.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | 9.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | 7.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | 5.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 16.86× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 13.23× | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.62× | 6.35× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.40× | 2.75× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 6.12× | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.64× | 0.97× |
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% |
LSCC
Segment breakdown not available.
