vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of A10 Networks, Inc. (ATEN) and Ubiquiti Inc. (UI), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Ubiquiti Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($814.9M vs $80.4M, roughly 10.1× A10 Networks, Inc.). Ubiquiti Inc. runs the higher net margin — 12.3% vs 28.7%, a 16.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Ubiquiti Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (35.8% vs 8.3%). Ubiquiti Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($260.3M vs $16.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Ubiquiti Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (28.6% CAGR vs 15.1%).
A10 Networks, Inc. is an American public company specializing in the manufacturing of application delivery controllers. Founded in 2004 by Lee Chen, co-founder of Foundry Networks, A10 originally serviced just the identity management market with its line of ID Series products. In early 2007, they added bandwidth management appliances. The company had its initial public offering on March 21, 2014, raising $187.5 million.
Ubiquiti Inc. is an American technology company founded in San Jose, California, in 2003. Now based in New York City, Ubiquiti manufactures and sells wireless data communication and wired products for enterprises and homes under multiple brand names. On October 13, 2011, Ubiquiti had its initial public offering (IPO) at 7.04 million shares, at $15 per share, raising $30.5 million.
ATEN vs UI — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q2 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $80.4M | $814.9M |
| Net Profit | $9.9M | $233.6M |
| Gross Margin | 78.7% | 45.9% |
| Operating Margin | 18.7% | 35.9% |
| Net Margin | 12.3% | 28.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 8.3% | 35.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -46.1% | 70.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.13 | $3.86 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $80.4M | $814.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $74.7M | $733.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $69.4M | $759.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $66.1M | $664.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $74.2M | $599.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $66.7M | $550.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $60.1M | $507.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $60.7M | $493.0M |
| Q4 25 | $9.9M | $233.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.2M | $207.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.5M | $266.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.5M | $180.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $18.3M | $136.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.6M | $128.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.5M | $103.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.7M | $76.3M |
| Q4 25 | 78.7% | 45.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 80.1% | 46.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 78.9% | 45.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 79.7% | 44.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 79.9% | 41.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 80.5% | 42.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 80.0% | 40.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 81.1% | 35.3% |
| Q4 25 | 18.7% | 35.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.4% | 35.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.9% | 34.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.3% | 34.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.8% | 29.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.7% | 30.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.2% | 27.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.9% | 22.6% |
| Q4 25 | 12.3% | 28.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.3% | 28.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.2% | 35.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.4% | 27.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.7% | 22.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 18.9% | 23.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.8% | 20.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.0% | 15.5% |
| Q4 25 | $0.13 | $3.86 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.17 | $3.43 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.14 | $4.40 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.13 | $2.98 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.24 | $2.26 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.17 | $2.12 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.13 | $1.72 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.13 | $1.26 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $684.6M | $302.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $218.8M | $47.5M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $211.5M | $1.0B |
| Total Assets | $629.8M | $1.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.03× | 0.05× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $684.6M | $302.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $370.9M | $177.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $367.4M | $149.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $355.8M | $151.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $195.6M | $133.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $182.1M | $165.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $177.1M | $126.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $182.1M | $102.5M |
| Q4 25 | $218.8M | $47.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $218.4M | $133.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $218.1M | $250.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $217.7M | $340.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $0 | $406.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $552.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $708.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $877.5M |
| Q4 25 | $211.5M | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $206.2M | $828.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $204.0M | $668.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $195.9M | $436.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $231.8M | $290.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $217.3M | $188.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $214.4M | $95.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $214.3M | $25.9M |
| Q4 25 | $629.8M | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $620.1M | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $607.9M | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $606.2M | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $432.8M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $407.7M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $397.2M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $395.7M | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | 1.03× | 0.05× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.06× | 0.16× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.07× | 0.37× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.11× | 0.78× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.00× | 1.40× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.94× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 7.45× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 33.92× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $22.7M | $263.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $16.0M | $260.3M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 20.0% | 31.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 8.3% | 0.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 2.30× | 1.13× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $64.8M | $699.5M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $22.7M | $263.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.8M | $198.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.2M | $130.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.2M | $123.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $25.7M | $152.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $20.1M | $233.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.2M | $231.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $32.4M | $163.9M |
| Q4 25 | $16.0M | $260.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.1M | $193.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.9M | $125.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $12.7M | $120.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $23.3M | $150.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $16.7M | $231.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.7M | $229.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $29.5M | $160.6M |
| Q4 25 | 20.0% | 31.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.2% | 26.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 25.9% | 16.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.2% | 18.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 31.4% | 25.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 25.0% | 42.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.5% | 45.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 48.7% | 32.6% |
| Q4 25 | 8.3% | 0.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.3% | 0.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.1% | 0.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.8% | 0.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.2% | 0.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.2% | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.8% | 0.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.8% | 0.7% |
| Q4 25 | 2.30× | 1.13× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.87× | 0.95× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.10× | 0.49× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.80× | 0.68× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.40× | 1.11× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.59× | 1.83× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.29× | 2.23× | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.34× | 2.15× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ATEN
| Products | $48.8M | 61% |
| Services | $31.5M | 39% |
UI
| Enterprise Technology | $729.0M | 89% |
| Service Provider Technology | $85.9M | 11% |
