vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORP (CRS) and OLYMPIC STEEL INC (ZEUS), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($728.0M vs $490.7M, roughly 1.5× OLYMPIC STEEL INC). CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORP runs the higher net margin — 14.5% vs 0.4%, a 14.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.5% vs 4.4%). CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($85.9M vs $-12.9M). Over the past eight quarters, CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORP's revenue compounded faster (3.1% CAGR vs 0.1%).
Carpenter Technology Corporation develops, manufactures, and distributes stainless steels and corrosion-resistant nickel, copper and titanium alloys as well as powdered alloys for 3D additive manufacturing. In fiscal year 2018, the company's revenues were derived from the aerospace and defense industry (55%), the industrial and consumer industry (17%), the medical industry (8%), the transportation industry (7%), the energy industry (7%), and the distribution industry (6%). The company's produ...
Olympic Steel, Inc. is a metals service center based in Cleveland, Ohio. The company processes and distributes carbon, coated and stainless flat-rolled sheet, coil and plate steel, aluminium alloy, tin plate, and metal-intensive branded products primarily in the United States. Metals processing and value added services include tempering, stretch leveling, cutting-to-length, slitting, edging, shearing, blanking, burning, forming, shot blasting, laser punching, plate rolling, fabricating, machi...
CRS vs ZEUS — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q3 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $728.0M | $490.7M |
| Net Profit | $105.3M | $2.2M |
| Gross Margin | 30.0% | — |
| Operating Margin | 21.3% | 1.5% |
| Net Margin | 14.5% | 0.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.5% | 4.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | 25.2% | -21.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.09 | $0.18 |
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 | $728.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $733.7M | $490.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $755.6M | $496.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $727.0M | $492.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $676.9M | $418.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $717.6M | $470.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $798.7M | $526.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $684.9M | $526.6M |
| Q4 25 | $105.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $122.5M | $2.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $111.7M | $5.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $95.4M | $2.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $84.1M | $3.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $84.8M | $2.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $93.6M | $7.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.3M | $8.7M |
| Q4 25 | 30.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 29.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 28.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 27.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 26.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 24.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.9% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 21.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | 21.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.9% | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.1% | 2.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.0% | 1.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.6% | 2.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.8% | 1.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.6% | 2.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.1% | 3.0% |
| Q4 25 | 14.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.7% | 0.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.8% | 1.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.1% | 0.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.4% | 0.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.8% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.7% | 1.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.9% | 1.7% |
| Q4 25 | $2.09 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.43 | $0.18 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.21 | $0.45 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.88 | $0.21 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.66 | $0.33 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.67 | $0.23 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.85 | $0.66 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.12 | $0.75 |
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 | $231.9M | $7.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $240.9M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.0B | $579.1M |
| Total Assets | $3.5B | $1.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.42× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $231.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $208.0M | $7.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $315.5M | $14.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $151.5M | $13.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $162.1M | $11.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $150.2M | $11.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $199.1M | $9.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $53.5M | $10.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $240.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $233.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $235.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $272.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $197.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $209.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $196.8M |
| Q4 25 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $579.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | $578.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $574.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7B | $573.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $570.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $569.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | $563.0M |
| Q4 25 | $3.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.4B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.5B | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.4B | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.3B | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.3B | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.3B | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.2B | $1.0B |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.42× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.40× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.41× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.47× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.35× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.37× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.35× |
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 | $132.2M | $-5.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $85.9M | $-12.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 11.8% | -2.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 6.4% | 1.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.26× | -2.50× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $316.7M | $41.9M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $132.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $39.2M | $-5.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $258.1M | $15.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $74.2M | $49.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $67.9M | $14.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $40.2M | $24.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $169.5M | $-2.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $83.5M | $-2.6M |
| Q4 25 | $85.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-3.4M | $-12.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $200.2M | $6.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $34.0M | $40.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $38.6M | $7.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.3M | $15.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $141.8M | $-11.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $61.9M | $-7.4M |
| Q4 25 | 11.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -0.5% | -2.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 26.5% | 1.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.7% | 8.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.7% | 1.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.9% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.8% | -2.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.0% | -1.4% |
| Q4 25 | 6.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.8% | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.7% | 1.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.5% | 1.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.3% | 1.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.7% | 1.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.5% | 1.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.2% | 0.9% |
| Q4 25 | 1.26× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.32× | -2.50× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.31× | 2.96× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.78× | 19.70× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.81× | 3.75× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.47× | 9.01× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.81× | -0.38× | ||
| Q1 24 | 13.25× | -0.30× |
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
CRS
| Aerospace And Defense Markets | $448.8M | 62% |
| Industrial And Consumer Markets | $88.4M | 12% |
| Performance Engineered Products Segment | $83.2M | 11% |
| Medical Market | $54.7M | 8% |
| Energy Market | $48.5M | 7% |
| Transportation Market | $21.2M | 3% |
| Distribution Market | $17.2M | 2% |
ZEUS
| Carbon Flat Products | $268.2M | 55% |
| Specialty Metals Flat Products | $140.9M | 29% |
| Tubular And Pipe Products | $81.6M | 17% |
