vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CENTURY ALUMINUM CO (CENX) and Pure Storage, Inc. (PSTG). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Pure Storage, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($964.5M vs $633.7M, roughly 1.5× CENTURY ALUMINUM CO). Pure Storage, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 5.7% vs 0.3%, a 5.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Pure Storage, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (16.0% vs 0.4%). CENTURY ALUMINUM CO produced more free cash flow last quarter ($67.7M vs $52.6M). Over the past eight quarters, CENTURY ALUMINUM CO's revenue compounded faster (13.8% CAGR vs 10.5%).
Century Aluminum Company is a US-based producer of primary aluminum, with aluminum plants in Kentucky, South Carolina and Iceland. It is the largest producer of primary aluminum in the United States. The company is a publicly held corporation listed on the NASDAQ. The headquarters is at One South Wacker in Chicago.
Pure Storage, Inc. is an American publicly traded technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, United States. It develops all-flash data storage hardware and software products. Pure Storage was founded in 2009 and developed its products in stealth mode until 2011. Afterwards, the company grew in revenues by about 50% per quarter and raised more than $470 million in venture capital funding, before going public in 2015. Initially, Pure Storage developed the software for storage ...
CENX vs PSTG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $633.7M | $964.5M |
| Net Profit | $1.8M | $54.8M |
| Gross Margin | 13.0% | 72.3% |
| Operating Margin | 5.2% | 5.6% |
| Net Margin | 0.3% | 5.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 0.4% | 16.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -96.0% | -13.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.03 | $0.16 |
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 | $633.7M | $964.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $632.2M | $861.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $628.1M | $778.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $633.9M | $879.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $630.9M | $831.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $539.1M | $763.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $560.8M | $693.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $489.5M | $789.8M |
| Q4 25 | $1.8M | $54.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $14.9M | $47.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.6M | $-14.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $29.7M | $42.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $45.2M | $63.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $47.3M | $35.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-2.5M | $-35.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $246.8M | $65.4M |
| Q4 25 | 13.0% | 72.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.2% | 70.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.8% | 68.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.6% | 67.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.5% | 70.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.2% | 70.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.6% | 71.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.4% | 72.0% |
| Q4 25 | 5.2% | 5.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.2% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.3% | -4.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.3% | 4.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.8% | 7.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.8% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.1% | -6.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.4% | 7.3% |
| Q4 25 | 0.3% | 5.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.4% | 5.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.7% | -1.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.7% | 4.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.2% | 7.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.8% | 4.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.4% | -5.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 50.4% | 8.3% |
| Q4 25 | $0.03 | $0.16 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.15 | $0.14 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.05 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.29 | $0.13 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.58 | $0.19 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.46 | $0.10 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.03 | $-0.11 | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.26 | $0.22 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $134.2M | $852.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $805.6M | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $2.3B | $4.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $134.2M | $852.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $151.4M | $887.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $40.7M | $739.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $44.9M | $723.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $32.9M | $894.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $965.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $41.3M | $900.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $93.5M | $702.5M |
| Q4 25 | $805.6M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $741.8M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $724.4M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $726.3M | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $694.4M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $628.5M | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $601.5M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $601.5M | $1.3B |
| Q4 25 | $2.3B | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.1B | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | $3.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | $4.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.9B | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $3.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.8B | $3.7B |
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 | $102.8M | $116.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $67.7M | $52.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 10.7% | 5.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 5.5% | 6.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 57.11× | 2.12× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $84.8M | $566.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $102.8M | $116.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0M | $212.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.9M | $283.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $72.3M | $208.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-41.4M | $97.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $20.1M | $226.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.5M | $221.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-14.8M | $244.4M |
| Q4 25 | $67.7M | $52.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-18.1M | $150.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-15.9M | $211.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $51.1M | $152.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-54.6M | $35.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.4M | $166.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.4M | $172.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-44.5M | $200.9M |
| Q4 25 | 10.7% | 5.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.9% | 17.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.5% | 27.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.1% | 17.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -8.7% | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -0.4% | 21.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.0% | 24.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -9.1% | 25.4% |
| Q4 25 | 5.5% | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | 7.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.8% | 9.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.3% | 6.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.1% | 7.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.2% | 7.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.0% | 7.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.1% | 5.5% |
| Q4 25 | 57.11× | 2.12× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.13× | 4.50× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.43× | 4.91× | ||
| Q4 24 | -0.92× | 1.52× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.42× | 6.35× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.06× | 3.74× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CENX
| Aluminum | $566.3M | 89% |
| Alumina | $67.4M | 11% |
PSTG
| US | $683.2M | 71% |
| Non Us | $281.3M | 29% |
