vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. (APAM) and MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES LTD (MGIC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES LTD is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($419.6M vs $335.5M, roughly 1.3× Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc.). Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. runs the higher net margin — 35.2% vs 8.4%, a 26.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($171.6M vs $37.0M).
Artisan Partners is an American asset management company headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Outside the United States, the company has offices in Dublin, Hong Kong, London, Singapore and Sydney.
Magic Software Enterprises provides low-code integration and data management platforms that simplify the connection between legacy on-premise systems and modern cloud applications. Its flagship products — Magic xpi Integration Platform and FactoryEye Smart Factory Solution, enable enterprises to achieve end-to-end visibility, faster cloud migration, and managed integration services.
APAM vs MGIC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2023
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $335.5M | $419.6M |
| Net Profit | $118.1M | $35.3M |
| Gross Margin | — | 27.1% |
| Operating Margin | 39.2% | 11.3% |
| Net Margin | 35.2% | 8.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 12.9% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 34.9% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.36 | — |
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 | $335.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $301.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $282.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $277.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $297.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $279.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $270.8M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $264.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | $118.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $66.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $67.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $61.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $87.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $73.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $57.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $59.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | 39.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 33.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 28.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 31.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 36.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 33.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 32.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | 35.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 22.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 23.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 29.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 22.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.36 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.93 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.94 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.82 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.99 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.03 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.80 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.84 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $83.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $190.0M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $438.8M | $276.3M |
| Total Assets | $1.6B | $505.1M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.43× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $190.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $190.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $200.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $200.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $200.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $200.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $200.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $200.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $438.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $402.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $381.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $356.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $388.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $372.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $341.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $320.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.43× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.47× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.52× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.56× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.51× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.54× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.59× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.62× | — |
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 | $172.0M | $40.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $171.6M | $37.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 51.2% | 8.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.1% | 0.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.46× | 1.14× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $420.6M | $98.8M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $172.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $40.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $50.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $157.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $372.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $112.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $75.9M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $147.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $171.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $40.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $50.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $157.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $371.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $112.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $75.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $146.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | 51.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 56.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 125.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 40.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 27.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 55.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.46× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.60× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.75× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.58× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.26× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.54× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.32× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.47× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
