vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP (AP) and Ranpak Holdings Corp. (PACK). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($104.4M vs $93.7M, roughly 1.1× Ranpak Holdings Corp.). On growth, AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.5% vs 2.3%). Over the past eight quarters, Ranpak Holdings Corp.'s revenue compounded faster (13.7% 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...
Ranpak Holdings Corp. manufactures machines and paper products used in protective paper-based packing for shipping goods and merchandise for e-commerce and industry, along with automation solutions. The company is based in Concord, Ohio, and has production facilities and offices in Reno, Nevada; Kansas City, Missouri; the Netherlands; Czech Republic; Shanghai and Singapore. The paper packaging material can be used for multiple applications like wrapping, cushioning, void fill and cold chain p...
AP vs PACK — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $104.4M | $93.7M |
| Net Profit | $-57.7M | — |
| Gross Margin | — | 39.0% |
| Operating Margin | -54.0% | -1.0% |
| Net Margin | -55.2% | — |
| Revenue YoY | 11.5% | 2.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1958.9% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.87 | $-0.11 |
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 | $93.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $103.7M | $83.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $108.9M | $77.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.2M | $77.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.6M | $91.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $78.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.1M | $72.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $110.0M | $72.5M |
| Q4 25 | $-57.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.2M | $-10.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.3M | $-7.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1M | $-10.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.0M | $-8.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $5.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.7M | $-8.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | 39.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 41.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 37.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 39.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 45.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 43.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 43.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 44.6% |
| Q4 25 | -54.0% | -1.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | -6.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.8% | -12.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | -10.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | 1.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.0% | -5.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | -7.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.1% | -6.6% |
| Q4 25 | -55.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.1% | -12.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.7% | -9.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | -14.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | -10.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 7.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -2.5% | -11.2% |
| Q4 25 | $-2.87 | $-0.11 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | $-0.12 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.36 | $-0.09 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.06 | $-0.13 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.16 | $-0.13 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.10 | $-0.10 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | $0.07 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.14 | $-0.10 |
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 | $63.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $117.9M | $401.9M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $32.6M | $534.9M |
| Total Assets | $495.4M | $1.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.61× | 0.75× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $10.7M | $63.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.0M | $49.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | $49.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.1M | $65.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.4M | $76.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $69.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9M | $65.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.8M | $55.1M |
| Q4 25 | $117.9M | $401.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.0M | $403.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $115.9M | $403.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $115.0M | $405.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $116.4M | $406.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $116.0M | $403.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $119.4M | $396.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $116.2M | $396.7M |
| Q4 25 | $32.6M | $534.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.1M | $537.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $62.7M | $539.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.6M | $544.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.9M | $548.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.3M | $564.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.0M | $566.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $56.3M | $560.0M |
| Q4 25 | $495.4M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $524.4M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $537.2M | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $536.2M | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $530.9M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $547.4M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $560.8M | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $565.8M | $1.1B |
| Q4 25 | 3.61× | 0.75× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.98× | 0.75× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.85× | 0.75× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.78× | 0.74× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.98× | 0.74× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.89× | 0.71× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.06× | 0.70× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.06× | 0.71× |
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 | $19.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-64.0K | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -0.1% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.7% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-8.1M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $2.7M | $19.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.3M | $8.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.3M | $-3.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.3M | $-1.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5M | $6.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.4M | $10.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.3M | $19.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.5M | $5.2M |
| Q4 25 | $-64.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-7.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | -0.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.62× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.40× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.64× | 3.56× | ||
| 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% |
PACK
| Other | $47.9M | 51% |
| Europe And Asia Segment | $45.8M | 49% |
