vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP (AP) and Lulu's Fashion Lounge Holdings, Inc. (LVLU). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($104.4M vs $66.1M, roughly 1.6× Lulu's Fashion Lounge Holdings, Inc.). Lulu's Fashion Lounge Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -48.2% vs -55.2%, a 7.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.5% vs -11.8%). AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-64.0K vs $-2.6M). Over the past eight quarters, AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP's revenue compounded faster (-2.6% CAGR vs -14.7%).
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...
Lulu's Fashion Lounge Holdings, Inc. is a direct-to-consumer women's fashion retailer offering affordable, trendy apparel, footwear, and accessories. It primarily serves Gen Z and millennial consumers across North America, operating mainly via its e-commerce platform, with limited pop-up physical locations to boost customer engagement.
AP vs LVLU — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2024
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $104.4M | $66.1M |
| Net Profit | $-57.7M | $-31.9M |
| Gross Margin | — | 37.9% |
| Operating Margin | -54.0% | -52.8% |
| Net Margin | -55.2% | -48.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.5% | -11.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1958.9% | -340.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.87 | $-13.46 |
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 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $103.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $108.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.6M | $66.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $80.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.1M | $92.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $110.0M | $77.3M |
| Q4 25 | $-57.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1M | $-31.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.0M | $-6.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $-10.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.7M | $-5.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 37.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 38.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 45.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 42.3% |
| Q4 25 | -54.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | -52.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.0% | -8.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | -4.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.1% | -8.0% |
| Q4 25 | -55.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | -48.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | -8.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | -11.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -2.5% | -7.4% |
| Q4 25 | $-2.87 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.36 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.06 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.16 | $-13.46 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.10 | $-2.47 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | $-3.92 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.14 | $-0.15 |
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 | $4.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $117.9M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $32.6M | $13.4M |
| Total Assets | $495.4M | $108.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.61× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $10.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.4M | $4.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $6.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9M | $1.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.8M | $5.5M |
| 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 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $62.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.9M | $13.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.3M | $43.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.0M | $48.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $56.3M | $57.7M |
| Q4 25 | $495.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $524.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $537.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $536.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $530.9M | $108.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $547.4M | $153.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $560.8M | $145.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $565.8M | $160.6M |
| 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 | $-2.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-64.0K | $-2.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -0.1% | -3.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.7% | 0.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-8.1M | $1.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $2.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5M | $-2.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.4M | $-5.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.3M | $3.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.5M | $6.9M |
| Q4 25 | $-64.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-7.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7M | $-2.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.4M | $-5.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.0M | $3.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7M | $6.4M |
| Q4 25 | -0.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | -3.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.1% | -7.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.5% | 3.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | 8.3% |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | 0.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | 0.7% |
| 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% |
LVLU
| Single Reportable Segment | $63.0M | 95% |
| Other | $2.4M | 4% |
| Stored Value Cards | $750.0K | 1% |
