vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Great Lakes Dredge & Dock CORP (GLDD) and LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (LSCC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($256.5M vs $145.8M, roughly 1.8× LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP). Great Lakes Dredge & Dock CORP runs the higher net margin — 4.9% vs -5.2%, a 10.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (26.5% vs 9.3%). Great Lakes Dredge & Dock CORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($50.3M vs $44.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock CORP's revenue compounded faster (13.6% CAGR vs 8.4%).
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company is an American company providing construction services in dredging and land reclamation, currently the largest such provider in the United States. GLD&D operates primarily in the United States but conducts one-quarter of its business overseas. The company was based in Oak Brook, Illinois, but in October 2020 relocated its corporate headquarters to Houston, 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 ...
GLDD vs LSCC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $256.5M | $145.8M |
| Net Profit | $12.6M | $-7.6M |
| Gross Margin | 20.9% | 68.5% |
| Operating Margin | 12.7% | 30.7% |
| Net Margin | 4.9% | -5.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 26.5% | 9.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | -35.9% | 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 | $256.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $195.2M | $133.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $193.8M | $124.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $242.9M | $120.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $202.8M | $117.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $191.2M | $127.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $170.1M | $124.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | $-7.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | $12.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $17.7M | $2.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.7M | $2.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $33.4M | $5.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.7M | $16.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.9M | $7.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.7M | $22.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | 68.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | 20.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 22.4% | 67.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.9% | 68.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 28.6% | 68.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.1% | 61.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.0% | 69.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.5% | 68.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.4% | -1.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.8% | 3.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.6% | 5.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.8% | -10.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.7% | 5.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.6% | 18.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | -5.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | 4.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.1% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.0% | 2.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.8% | 4.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.7% | 14.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.6% | 5.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.5% | 18.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | $-0.06 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.19 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.26 | $0.02 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.14 | $0.02 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.49 | $0.04 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.29 | $0.12 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.13 | $0.05 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.11 | $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 | $13.4M | $133.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $378.2M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $517.1M | $714.1M |
| Total Assets | $1.3B | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.73× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $133.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | $13.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.7M | $117.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.9M | $107.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.3M | $127.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.2M | $136.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.0M | $124.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $23.1M | $109.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $378.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $448.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $714.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | $517.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $502.1M | $706.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $481.9M | $687.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $479.9M | $707.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $448.9M | $710.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $425.4M | $703.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $418.0M | $698.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | $883.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $844.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $808.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $823.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $843.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $853.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $827.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.73× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.00× | — | ||
| 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 | $79.7M | $57.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $50.3M | $44.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 19.6% | 30.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 11.5% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 6.31× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $99.5M | $153.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $57.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | $79.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.2M | $47.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $56.9M | $38.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $60.9M | $31.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-13.5M | $45.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $26.8M | $44.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.4M | $21.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | $44.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $50.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.2M | $34.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.7M | $31.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $39.6M | $23.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-36.1M | $39.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-11.5M | $39.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-34.0M | $14.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | 30.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | 19.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.8% | 25.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1.9% | 25.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.3% | 19.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | -17.8% | 33.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -6.0% | 31.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -20.0% | 11.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | 9.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | 11.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.4% | 9.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 31.3% | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.7% | 7.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.2% | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.0% | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 30.8% | 5.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 6.31× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.77× | 16.86× | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.87× | 13.23× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.82× | 6.35× | ||
| Q4 24 | -0.69× | 2.75× | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.02× | 6.12× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.39× | 0.97× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
