vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BEL FUSE INC (BELFA) and MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL CORP (MATW). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($284.8M vs $178.5M, roughly 1.6× BEL FUSE INC). MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL CORP runs the higher net margin — 15.3% vs 8.4%, a 6.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, BEL FUSE INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (17.2% vs -29.1%).
Bel Fuse Inc. is a global manufacturer of electronic components, offering interconnect solutions, magnetics, and circuit protection products for industries including automotive, data communications, aerospace, industrial, and consumer electronics. It serves original equipment manufacturers and contract manufacturers across North America, Europe, and Asia, prioritizing high-performance, reliable components for cutting-edge technology applications.
Matthews Aurora Funeral Solutions is one of the largest manufacturers of caskets and funerary urns in the United States, selling over 38% of the country's caskets as of 2005. The Aurora, Indiana–based company is a subsidiary of Pittsburgh-based Matthews International. The company makes both wooden and metal caskets and urns for holding cremated remains. It also provides supplies and consulting services for funeral homes.
BELFA vs MATW — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $178.5M | $284.8M |
| Net Profit | $15.0M | $43.6M |
| Gross Margin | 39.0% | 35.0% |
| Operating Margin | 13.3% | 34.2% |
| Net Margin | 8.4% | 15.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 17.2% | -29.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -18.2% | 1356.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $1.39 |
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.
| Q1 26 | $178.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $175.9M | $284.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $179.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $168.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $152.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $149.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $123.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $133.2M | — |
| Q1 26 | $15.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $6.4M | $43.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $26.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.8M | — |
| Q1 26 | 39.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 39.4% | 35.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 39.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 38.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 38.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 37.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 36.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 40.1% | — |
| Q1 26 | 13.3% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 14.7% | 34.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.0% | — |
| Q1 26 | 8.4% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 3.7% | 15.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.1% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.39 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $59.4M | $31.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $204.5M | $529.8M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $438.9M | $543.2M |
| Total Assets | $951.9M | $1.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.47× | 0.98× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $59.4M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $57.8M | $31.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $57.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $59.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $65.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $68.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $134.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $85.0M | — |
| Q1 26 | $204.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $197.5M | $529.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $287.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | $438.9M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $425.5M | $543.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $427.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $404.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $376.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $360.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $367.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $356.4M | — |
| Q1 26 | $951.9M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $935.2M | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $952.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $950.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $940.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $949.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $584.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $567.6M | — |
| Q1 26 | 0.47× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.46× | 0.98× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.80× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
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 | $13.8M | $-52.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-57.2M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -20.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 1.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.92× | -1.19× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $13.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $29.6M | $-52.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $27.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $32.2M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $26.1M | $-57.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $20.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $16.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $23.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $30.8M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 14.9% | -20.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.2% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.9% | 1.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.0% | — |
| Q1 26 | 0.92× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 4.59× | -1.19× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.98× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.77× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.46× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.30× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.39× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.71× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
