vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CIRRUS LOGIC, INC. (CRUS) and LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (LSCC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CIRRUS LOGIC, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($580.6M vs $145.8M, roughly 4.0× LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP). CIRRUS LOGIC, INC. runs the higher net margin — 24.2% vs -5.2%, a 29.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (24.2% vs 4.5%). CIRRUS LOGIC, INC. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($285.7M vs $44.0M). Over the past eight quarters, CIRRUS LOGIC, INC.'s revenue compounded faster (25.0% CAGR vs 1.8%).
Cirrus Logic Inc. is an American fabless semiconductor supplier that specializes in analog, mixed-signal, and audio DSP integrated circuits (ICs). Since 1998, the company's headquarters have been in Austin, Texas.
Lattice Semiconductor Corporation is an American semiconductor company specializing in the design and manufacturing of low power field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). Headquartered in the Silicon Forest area of Hillsboro, Oregon, the company also has operations in San Jose, Calif., Shanghai, Manila, Penang, and Singapore. Lattice Semiconductor has more than 1000 employees and an annual revenue of more than $660 million as of 2022. The company was founded in 1983 and went public in 1989. It ...
CRUS vs LSCC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2026 vs Q4 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $580.6M | $145.8M |
| Net Profit | $140.3M | $-7.6M |
| Gross Margin | 53.1% | 68.5% |
| Operating Margin | 26.3% | 0.7% |
| Net Margin | 24.2% | -5.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 4.5% | 24.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | 21.0% | -146.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.66 | $-0.06 |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $145.8M | ||
| Q4 25 | $580.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $561.0M | $133.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $407.3M | $124.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $424.5M | $120.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $555.7M | $117.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $541.9M | $127.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $374.0M | $124.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | $-7.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | $140.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $131.6M | $2.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $60.7M | $2.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $71.3M | $5.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $116.0M | $16.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $102.1M | $7.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $42.1M | $22.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | 68.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | 53.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 52.5% | 67.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 52.6% | 68.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 53.4% | 68.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 53.6% | 61.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 52.2% | 69.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 50.5% | 68.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 25 | 26.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 25.8% | -1.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.8% | 3.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.2% | 5.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 26.2% | -10.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 24.3% | 5.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.5% | 18.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | -5.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | 24.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 23.5% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.9% | 2.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.8% | 4.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 20.9% | 14.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 18.8% | 5.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.3% | 18.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | $-0.06 | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.66 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.48 | $0.02 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.14 | $0.02 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.30 | $0.04 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.11 | $0.12 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.83 | $0.05 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.76 | $0.16 |
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 | $778.1M | $133.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.1B | $714.1M |
| Total Assets | $2.5B | $883.1M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $133.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | $778.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $593.5M | $117.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $548.9M | $107.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $539.6M | $127.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $526.4M | $136.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $445.8M | $124.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $491.4M | $109.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | $714.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.1B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0B | $706.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | $687.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.9B | $707.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.0B | $710.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.9B | $703.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $698.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | $883.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.4B | $844.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.3B | $808.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.3B | $823.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4B | $843.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.4B | $853.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.3B | $827.5M |
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 | $290.8M | $57.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $285.7M | $44.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 49.2% | 30.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.9% | 9.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 2.07× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $614.5M | $132.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $57.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | $290.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $92.2M | $47.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $116.1M | $38.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $130.4M | $31.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $218.6M | $45.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.2M | $44.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $87.2M | $21.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | $44.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $285.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $88.3M | $34.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $113.5M | $31.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $127.0M | $23.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $211.9M | $39.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.6M | $39.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $77.2M | $14.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | 30.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | 49.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.7% | 25.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 27.9% | 25.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 29.9% | 19.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 38.1% | 33.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.0% | 31.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.6% | 11.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | 9.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.7% | 9.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.6% | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.8% | 7.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.2% | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.5% | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.7% | 5.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.07× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.70× | 16.86× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.91× | 13.23× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.83× | 6.35× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.88× | 2.75× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.08× | 6.12× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.07× | 0.97× |
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
CRUS
| Audio Products Segment | $344.5M | 59% |
| High Performance Mixed Signal Products | $236.2M | 41% |
LSCC
Segment breakdown not available.
