vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AVISTA CORP (AVA) and Phillips Edison & Company, Inc. (PECO), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
AVISTA CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($533.0M vs $3.4M, roughly 157.8× Phillips Edison & Company, Inc.). Phillips Edison & Company, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 13.3% vs 1406.9%, a 1393.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Phillips Edison & Company, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (21.2% vs 0.0%). Over the past eight quarters, Phillips Edison & Company, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (14.8% CAGR vs -6.5%).
Avista Corporation is an American energy company which generates and transmits electricity and distributes natural gas to residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Approximately 1,550 employees provide electricity, natural gas, and other energy services to 359,000 electric and 320,000 natural gas customers in three western states. The service territory covers 30,000 square miles (78,000 km2) in eastern Washington, northern Idaho, and parts of southern and eastern Oregon, with a popul...
Consolidated Edison, Inc., commonly known as Con Edison or ConEd, is an energy company based in New York City. It is one of the largest investor-owned energy companies in the United States, with approximately $15.26 billion in annual revenues as of 2024, and over $70 billion in assets. The company provides a wide range of energy-related products and services to its customers through its subsidiaries:Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), a regulated utility providing electric...
AVA vs PECO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $533.0M | $3.4M |
| Net Profit | $71.0M | $47.5M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 21.0% | — |
| Net Margin | 13.3% | 1406.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 0.0% | 21.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | 5.7% | 162.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.87 | $0.38 |
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 | $533.0M | $3.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $403.0M | $3.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $411.0M | $3.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $617.0M | $2.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $532.8M | $2.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $393.7M | $2.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $402.1M | $2.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $609.4M | $2.6M |
| Q4 25 | $71.0M | $47.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $29.0M | $24.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $14.0M | $12.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $79.0M | $26.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $67.2M | $18.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.5M | $11.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $22.9M | $15.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $71.5M | $17.7M |
| Q4 25 | 21.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 19.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 13.3% | 1406.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.2% | 754.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.4% | 385.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.8% | 945.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.6% | 650.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.7% | 406.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.7% | 605.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.7% | 688.9% |
| Q4 25 | $0.87 | $0.38 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.36 | $0.20 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.17 | $0.10 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.98 | $0.21 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.86 | $0.16 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.23 | $0.09 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.29 | $0.12 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.91 | $0.14 |
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 | $19.0M | $3.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $2.4B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.7B | $2.3B |
| Total Assets | $8.4B | $5.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 1.04× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $19.0M | $3.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $44.0M | $4.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.0M | $5.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.0M | $5.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $30.0M | $4.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.1M | $6.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $14.6M | $7.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.3M | $5.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.0B |
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $2.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | $2.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.6B | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $2.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.5B | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.5B | $2.3B |
| Q4 25 | $8.4B | $5.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.2B | $5.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.1B | $5.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.0B | $5.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.9B | $5.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.8B | $5.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.7B | $4.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.6B | $4.9B |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.04× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.05× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.04× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.99× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.91× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.94× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.90× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.88× |
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 | $75.0M | $96.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-116.0M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -21.8% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 35.8% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.06× | 2.02× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-101.0M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $75.0M | $96.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $170.0M | $95.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $40.0M | $96.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $184.0M | $60.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $89.8M | $84.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $127.2M | $109.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $126.8M | $78.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $190.1M | $63.1M |
| Q4 25 | $-116.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $37.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-103.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $81.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-37.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-27.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.7M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $71.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | -21.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -25.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -7.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -6.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | 35.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 33.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 34.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 23.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 39.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 33.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 19.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.06× | 2.02× | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.86× | 3.87× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.86× | 7.52× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.33× | 2.30× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.34× | 4.63× | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.88× | 9.40× | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.55× | 5.14× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.66× | 3.57× |
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.
