vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (DLB) and TIC Solutions, Inc. (TIC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
TIC Solutions, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($508.3M vs $395.6M, roughly 1.3× Dolby Laboratories, Inc.). Dolby Laboratories, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 24.0% vs -9.3%, a 33.3% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. is an American technology corporation specializing in audio noise reduction, audio encoding/compression, spatial audio, and high-dynamic-range television (HDR) imaging. Dolby licenses its technologies to consumer electronics manufacturers.
DLB vs TIC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $395.6M | $508.3M |
| Net Profit | $94.9M | $-47.2M |
| Gross Margin | 88.7% | 35.2% |
| Operating Margin | 28.5% | -3.8% |
| Net Margin | 24.0% | -9.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.1% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 3.4% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.99 | — |
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.
| Q2 26 | $395.6M | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $346.7M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $346.7M | $508.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $307.0M | $473.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $315.5M | $313.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $369.6M | $234.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $357.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $304.8M | — |
| Q2 26 | $94.9M | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $53.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $53.3M | $-47.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.3M | $-13.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $46.1M | $-233.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $91.8M | $-25.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $67.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $58.6M | — |
| Q2 26 | 88.7% | — | ||
| Q1 26 | 87.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 87.5% | 35.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 87.1% | 32.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 86.1% | 23.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 90.3% | 18.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 88.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 88.8% | — |
| Q2 26 | 28.5% | — | ||
| Q1 26 | 17.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 17.9% | -3.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.7% | -1.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.1% | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 29.2% | -4.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.2% | — |
| Q2 26 | 24.0% | — | ||
| Q1 26 | 15.4% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 15.4% | -9.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.1% | -2.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.6% | -0.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 24.8% | -11.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 19.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.2% | — |
| Q2 26 | $0.99 | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $0.55 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.55 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.50 | $-0.08 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.48 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.94 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.70 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.59 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $594.7M | $439.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.6B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.6B | $2.2B |
| Total Assets | $3.2B | $4.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.74× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q2 26 | $594.7M | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $644.6M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $644.6M | $439.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $702.6M | $164.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $699.3M | $130.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $626.6M | $155.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $520.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $482.0M | — |
| Q2 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $751.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $752.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q2 26 | $2.6B | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $2.6B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.6B | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.6B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | — |
| Q2 26 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.2B | $2.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.1B | — |
| Q2 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.74× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.83× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.64× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.67× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 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 | $147.3M | $49.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $37.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 7.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 2.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.55× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $61.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q2 26 | $147.3M | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $54.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $54.8M | $49.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $472.2M | $19.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $67.7M | $-6.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $174.9M | $32.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $106.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $327.3M | — |
| Q2 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $50.2M | $37.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $435.9M | $10.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $61.3M | $-14.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $168.0M | $28.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $100.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $297.2M | — |
| Q2 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 14.5% | 7.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 142.0% | 2.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.4% | -4.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 45.5% | 12.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 28.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 97.5% | — |
| Q2 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.3% | 2.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.8% | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.0% | 2.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.9% | 1.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.8% | — |
| Q2 26 | 1.55× | — | ||
| Q1 26 | 1.03× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.03× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.57× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.47× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.91× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.57× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.59× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
DLB
| Licensing | $372.2M | 94% |
| Products and services | $23.4M | 6% |
TIC
| Consulting Engineering Segment | $300.1M | 59% |
| Geospatial Segment | $131.3M | 26% |
| Fixed Unit Price Contracts | $54.3M | 11% |
| Other | $22.6M | 4% |
