vs

Side-by-side financial comparison of HAVERTY FURNITURE COMPANIES INC (HVT) and IPG PHOTONICS CORP (IPGP). Click either name above to swap in a different company.

IPG PHOTONICS CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($274.5M vs $201.9M, roughly 1.4× HAVERTY FURNITURE COMPANIES INC). IPG PHOTONICS CORP runs the higher net margin — 4.8% vs 4.2%, a 0.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, IPG PHOTONICS CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (17.1% vs 9.5%). IPG PHOTONICS CORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($10.9M vs $3.0M). Over the past eight quarters, HAVERTY FURNITURE COMPANIES INC's revenue compounded faster (4.8% CAGR vs 4.4%).

Furniture Brands International, Inc. was a home furnishings company, headquartered in Clayton, Missouri. The company began in 1911 as International Shoe Company with the merger of Roberts, Johnson & Rand Shoe Company and Peters Shoe Company. In 1966, the company changed its name to Interco as the result of diversification, and once the company exited the shoe business, adopted the name Furniture Brands International. Some of the brands it owned in the furniture industry included Broyhill, Tho...

IPG Photonics Corporation is a manufacturer of fiber lasers. IPG Photonics developed and commercialized optical fiber lasers, which are used in a variety of applications including materials processing, medical applications and telecommunications. IPG has manufacturing facilities in the United States, Germany, Russia and Italy.

HVT vs IPGP — Head-to-Head

Bigger by revenue
IPGP
IPGP
1.4× larger
IPGP
$274.5M
$201.9M
HVT
Growing faster (revenue YoY)
IPGP
IPGP
+7.6% gap
IPGP
17.1%
9.5%
HVT
Higher net margin
IPGP
IPGP
0.6% more per $
IPGP
4.8%
4.2%
HVT
More free cash flow
IPGP
IPGP
$8.0M more FCF
IPGP
$10.9M
$3.0M
HVT
Faster 2-yr revenue CAGR
HVT
HVT
Annualised
HVT
4.8%
4.4%
IPGP

Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025

Metric
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Revenue
$201.9M
$274.5M
Net Profit
$8.5M
$13.3M
Gross Margin
60.4%
36.1%
Operating Margin
5.3%
1.2%
Net Margin
4.2%
4.8%
Revenue YoY
9.5%
17.1%
Net Profit YoY
4.1%
69.8%
EPS (diluted)
$0.30

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.

Revenue
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
$201.9M
$274.5M
Q3 25
$194.5M
$250.8M
Q2 25
$181.0M
$250.7M
Q1 25
$181.6M
$227.8M
Q4 24
$184.4M
$234.3M
Q3 24
$175.9M
$233.1M
Q2 24
$178.6M
$257.6M
Q1 24
$184.0M
$252.0M
Net Profit
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
$8.5M
$13.3M
Q3 25
$4.7M
$7.5M
Q2 25
$2.7M
$6.6M
Q1 25
$3.8M
$3.8M
Q4 24
$8.2M
$7.8M
Q3 24
$4.9M
$-233.6M
Q2 24
$4.4M
$20.2M
Q1 24
$2.4M
$24.1M
Gross Margin
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
60.4%
36.1%
Q3 25
60.3%
39.5%
Q2 25
60.8%
37.3%
Q1 25
61.2%
39.4%
Q4 24
61.9%
38.6%
Q3 24
60.2%
23.2%
Q2 24
60.4%
37.3%
Q1 24
60.3%
38.7%
Operating Margin
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
5.3%
1.2%
Q3 25
3.3%
3.1%
Q2 25
2.4%
0.0%
Q1 25
2.9%
0.8%
Q4 24
5.2%
6.0%
Q3 24
3.9%
-108.7%
Q2 24
3.6%
4.7%
Q1 24
1.7%
7.6%
Net Margin
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
4.2%
4.8%
Q3 25
2.4%
3.0%
Q2 25
1.5%
2.6%
Q1 25
2.1%
1.6%
Q4 24
4.4%
3.3%
Q3 24
2.8%
-100.2%
Q2 24
2.5%
7.8%
Q1 24
1.3%
9.6%
EPS (diluted)
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
$0.30
Q3 25
$0.18
Q2 25
$0.16
Q1 25
$0.09
Q4 24
$0.27
Q3 24
$-5.33
Q2 24
$0.45
Q1 24
$0.52

Balance Sheet & Financial Strength

Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.

Metric
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand
$125.3M
$839.3M
Total DebtLower is stronger
Stockholders' EquityBook value
$307.9M
$2.1B
Total Assets
$649.1M
$2.4B
Debt / EquityLower = less leverage

8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.

Cash + ST Investments
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
$125.3M
$839.3M
Q3 25
$130.5M
$870.4M
Q2 25
$107.4M
$899.6M
Q1 25
$111.9M
$926.9M
Q4 24
$120.0M
$930.2M
Q3 24
$121.2M
$1.0B
Q2 24
$109.9M
$1.1B
Q1 24
$111.8M
$1.1B
Stockholders' Equity
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
$307.9M
$2.1B
Q3 25
$306.0M
$2.1B
Q2 25
$304.9M
$2.1B
Q1 25
$305.4M
$2.1B
Q4 24
$307.6M
$2.0B
Q3 24
$307.8M
$2.1B
Q2 24
$307.1M
$2.3B
Q1 24
$306.7M
$2.3B
Total Assets
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
$649.1M
$2.4B
Q3 25
$651.7M
$2.4B
Q2 25
$642.7M
$2.4B
Q1 25
$642.7M
$2.3B
Q4 24
$648.7M
$2.3B
Q3 24
$659.3M
$2.4B
Q2 24
$642.1M
$2.5B
Q1 24
$640.5M
$2.6B

Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency

How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.

Metric
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Operating Cash FlowLast quarter
$7.4M
$28.8M
Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex
$3.0M
$10.9M
FCF MarginFCF / Revenue
1.5%
4.0%
Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue
2.2%
6.5%
Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit
0.86×
2.17×
TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters
$33.0M
$-3.5M

8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.

Operating Cash Flow
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
$7.4M
$28.8M
Q3 25
$31.9M
$35.3M
Q2 25
$7.2M
$-2.2M
Q1 25
$6.2M
$13.4M
Q4 24
$16.9M
$73.8M
Q3 24
$24.4M
$66.1M
Q2 24
$14.4M
$53.5M
Q1 24
$3.1M
$54.6M
Free Cash Flow
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
$3.0M
$10.9M
Q3 25
$28.3M
$14.6M
Q2 25
$1.6M
$-17.6M
Q1 25
$27.0K
$-11.4M
Q4 24
$9.1M
$50.6M
Q3 24
$16.1M
$43.0M
Q2 24
$4.9M
$29.2M
Q1 24
$-3.3M
$26.5M
FCF Margin
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
1.5%
4.0%
Q3 25
14.6%
5.8%
Q2 25
0.9%
-7.0%
Q1 25
0.0%
-5.0%
Q4 24
4.9%
21.6%
Q3 24
9.2%
18.4%
Q2 24
2.7%
11.3%
Q1 24
-1.8%
10.5%
Capex Intensity
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
2.2%
6.5%
Q3 25
1.8%
8.3%
Q2 25
3.1%
6.1%
Q1 25
3.4%
10.9%
Q4 24
4.2%
9.9%
Q3 24
4.7%
9.9%
Q2 24
5.3%
9.4%
Q1 24
3.5%
11.1%
Cash Conversion
HVT
HVT
IPGP
IPGP
Q4 25
0.86×
2.17×
Q3 25
6.75×
4.73×
Q2 25
2.69×
-0.34×
Q1 25
1.63×
3.58×
Q4 24
2.06×
9.44×
Q3 24
4.96×
Q2 24
3.25×
2.65×
Q1 24
1.31×
2.27×

Financial Flow Comparison

Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.

Revenue Breakdown by Segment

HVT
HVT

Upholstery$91.0M45%
Bedroom Furniture$29.2M14%
Accessories And Other$28.4M14%
Dining Room Furniture$22.8M11%
Mattresses$16.1M8%
Occasional$14.4M7%

IPGP
IPGP

Materials Processing$232.8M85%
Laser And Non Laser Systems$38.8M14%
Transferred Over Time$5.3M2%

Related Comparisons