vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE GROUP (CWT) and LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (LSCC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE GROUP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($210.7M vs $145.8M, roughly 1.4× LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP). CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE GROUP runs the higher net margin — 5.4% vs -5.2%, a 10.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.3% vs -3.3%). Over the past eight quarters, CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE GROUP's revenue compounded faster (16.6% CAGR vs 8.4%).
California Water Service Group (CWSG) is an American public utility company providing drinking water and wastewater services. It is the third-largest investor-owned publicly traded water utility in the United States, serving roughly two million people through its subsidiary companies in California, Hawaii, New Mexico and Washington. CWSG was formed in 1997 as a new holding company for California Water Service to expand into other states regulated by their own public utilities commissions, and...
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 ...
CWT vs LSCC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $210.7M | $145.8M |
| Net Profit | $11.5M | $-7.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | 68.5% |
| Operating Margin | 12.2% | 30.7% |
| Net Margin | 5.4% | -5.2% |
| Revenue YoY | -3.3% | 9.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | -41.0% | 14.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.19 | $-0.06 |
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 | — | $145.8M | ||
| Q4 25 | $210.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $314.1M | $133.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $256.2M | $124.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $182.7M | $120.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $217.8M | $117.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $306.2M | $127.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $226.7M | $124.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | $-7.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | $11.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $61.2M | $2.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $42.2M | $2.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.3M | $5.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.5M | $16.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $60.7M | $7.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $40.6M | $22.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | 68.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 67.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 68.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 68.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 61.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 69.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 68.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 22.5% | -1.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.2% | 3.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.2% | 5.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.8% | -10.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 21.8% | 5.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.2% | 18.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | -5.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | 5.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.5% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 16.5% | 2.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.3% | 4.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.9% | 14.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.8% | 5.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.9% | 18.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | $-0.06 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.19 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.03 | $0.02 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.71 | $0.02 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.22 | $0.04 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.31 | $0.12 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.03 | $0.05 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.70 | $0.16 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $51.8M | $133.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $1.5B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.7B | $714.1M |
| Total Assets | $5.7B | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.87× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $133.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | $51.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $76.0M | $117.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $50.5M | $107.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $44.5M | $127.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $50.1M | $136.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $59.6M | $124.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $37.3M | $109.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $714.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.7B | $706.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | $687.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6B | $707.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $710.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.6B | $703.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5B | $698.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | $883.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.7B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.5B | $844.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.4B | $808.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.3B | $823.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.2B | $843.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.0B | $853.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.9B | $827.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.87× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.65× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.67× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.68× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.67× | — | ||
| 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 | $47.9M | $57.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $44.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 30.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 4.17× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $153.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $57.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | $47.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $167.3M | $47.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $48.9M | $38.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $38.4M | $31.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $68.1M | $45.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $101.8M | $44.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $94.4M | $21.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | $44.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $34.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $31.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $23.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $39.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $39.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $14.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | 30.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 25.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 25.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 19.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 33.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 31.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 11.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | 9.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 9.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 7.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 5.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 4.17× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.73× | 16.86× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.16× | 13.23× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.88× | 6.35× | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.50× | 2.75× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.68× | 6.12× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.33× | 0.97× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CWT
| Residential | $133.2M | 63% |
| Business | $47.7M | 23% |
| Public Authorities | $13.4M | 6% |
| Industrial | $6.9M | 3% |
| Non Regulated Services | $4.8M | 2% |
| Other Non Regulated Service | $1.2M | 1% |
LSCC
Segment breakdown not available.
