vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Great Lakes Dredge & Dock CORP (GLDD) and MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. (MTSI). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($271.6M vs $256.5M, roughly 1.1× Great Lakes Dredge & Dock CORP). MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 18.0% vs 4.9%, a 13.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (26.5% vs 24.5%). Great Lakes Dredge & Dock CORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($50.3M vs $30.0M). Over the past eight quarters, MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (22.4% CAGR vs 13.6%).
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.
MACOM Technology Solutions, Inc. is an American developer and producer of radio, microwave, and millimeter wave semiconductor devices and components. The company is headquartered in Lowell, Massachusetts, and in 2005 was Lowell's largest private employer. MACOM is certified to the ISO 9001 international quality standard and ISO 14001 environmental standard. The company has design centers and sales offices in North America, Europe, Asia and Australia.
GLDD vs MTSI — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $256.5M | $271.6M |
| Net Profit | $12.6M | $48.8M |
| Gross Margin | 20.9% | 55.9% |
| Operating Margin | 12.7% | 15.9% |
| Net Margin | 4.9% | 18.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 26.5% | 24.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | -35.9% | 129.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.19 | $0.64 |
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 | — | $271.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | $256.5M | $261.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $195.2M | $252.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $193.8M | $235.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $242.9M | $218.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $202.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $191.2M | $200.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $170.1M | $190.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | $48.8M | ||
| Q4 25 | $12.6M | $45.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $17.7M | $36.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.7M | $31.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $33.4M | $-167.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.9M | $29.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.7M | $19.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | 55.9% | ||
| Q4 25 | 20.9% | 54.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 22.4% | 55.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.9% | 55.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 28.6% | 53.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.0% | 54.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.5% | 53.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | 15.9% | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.7% | 15.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.4% | 14.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.8% | 14.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.6% | 8.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.7% | 13.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.6% | 10.4% |
| Q1 26 | — | 18.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | 4.9% | 17.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.1% | 14.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.0% | 13.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.8% | -76.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.6% | 14.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.5% | 10.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.64 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.19 | $0.67 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.26 | $0.48 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.14 | $0.42 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.49 | $-2.30 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.29 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.13 | $0.40 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.11 | $0.27 |
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 | $768.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $378.2M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $517.1M | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $1.3B | $2.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.73× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $768.5M | ||
| Q4 25 | $13.4M | $786.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.7M | $735.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.9M | $681.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.3M | $656.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.0M | $581.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $23.1M | $521.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $378.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $448.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | $517.1M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $502.1M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $481.9M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $479.9M | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $448.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $425.4M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $418.0M | $1.1B |
| Q1 26 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $1.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $1.7B |
| 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 | $42.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $50.3M | $30.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 19.6% | 11.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 11.5% | 4.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 6.31× | 0.88× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $99.5M | $161.5M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $42.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | $79.7M | $69.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.2M | $60.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $56.9M | $38.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $60.9M | $66.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-13.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $26.8M | $62.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.4M | $49.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | $30.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $50.3M | $49.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.2M | $51.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.7M | $30.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $39.6M | $61.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-36.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-11.5M | $57.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-34.0M | $41.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | 11.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | 19.6% | 18.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.8% | 20.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1.9% | 12.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.3% | 28.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | -17.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -6.0% | 28.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -20.0% | 21.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | 4.8% | ||
| Q4 25 | 11.5% | 7.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.4% | 3.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 31.3% | 3.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.7% | 2.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.0% | 2.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 30.8% | 3.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.88× | ||
| Q4 25 | 6.31× | 1.54× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.77× | 1.65× | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.87× | 1.22× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.82× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -0.69× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.02× | 2.12× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.39× | 2.46× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
GLDD
Segment breakdown not available.
MTSI
| Industrial Defense | $117.7M | 43% |
| Data Center | $85.8M | 32% |
| Telecom | $68.1M | 25% |
