vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of KLA Corporation (KLAC) and VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY INC (VSH), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
KLA Corporation is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.3B vs $800.9M, roughly 4.1× VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY INC). KLA Corporation runs the higher net margin — 34.7% vs 0.1%, a 34.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (12.1% vs 7.2%). KLA Corporation produced more free cash flow last quarter ($1.3B vs $54.6M). Over the past eight quarters, KLA Corporation's revenue compounded faster (18.2% CAGR vs 3.6%).
KLA Corporation is an American company based in Milpitas, California that makes wafer fab equipment. It supplies process control and yield management systems for the semiconductor industry and other related nanoelectronics industries. The company's products and services are intended for all phases of wafer, reticle, integrated circuit (IC) and packaging production, from research and development to final volume manufacturing.
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. is an American manufacturer of discrete semiconductors and passive electronic components founded by Polish-born businessman Felix Zandman. Vishay has manufacturing plants in Israel, Asia, Europe, and the Americas where it produces rectifiers, diodes, MOSFETs, optoelectronics, selected integrated circuits, resistors, capacitors, and inductors. Vishay Intertechnology revenues for 2024 were $2.9 billion. At the end of 2024, Vishay had approximately 22,700 full-time e...
KLAC vs VSH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.3B | $800.9M |
| Net Profit | $1.1B | $986.0K |
| Gross Margin | 61.4% | 19.6% |
| Operating Margin | — | 1.8% |
| Net Margin | 34.7% | 0.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.2% | 12.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 39.0% | 101.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $8.68 | $0.01 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $3.3B | $800.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | $790.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2B | $762.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.1B | $715.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1B | $714.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.8B | $735.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.6B | $741.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.4B | $746.3M |
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $986.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $-7.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $2.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $-4.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $824.5M | $-66.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $945.9M | $-19.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $836.4M | $23.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $601.5M | $30.9M |
| Q4 25 | 61.4% | 19.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 61.3% | 19.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 62.0% | 19.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 61.6% | 19.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 60.3% | 19.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 59.6% | 20.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 60.7% | 22.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 57.9% | 22.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 41.9% | 2.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 41.3% | 0.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 31.6% | -7.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 38.0% | -2.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 36.8% | 5.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.7% | 5.7% |
| Q4 25 | 34.7% | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 34.9% | -1.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 37.9% | 0.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 35.5% | -0.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 26.8% | -9.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 33.3% | -2.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 32.6% | 3.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 25.5% | 4.1% |
| Q4 25 | $8.68 | $0.01 | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.47 | $-0.06 | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.04 | $0.01 | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.16 | $-0.03 | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.16 | $-0.48 | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.01 | $-0.14 | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.16 | $0.17 | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.43 | $0.22 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $2.5B | $515.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $5.9B | $950.9M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.5B | $2.1B |
| Total Assets | $16.7B | $4.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.08× | 0.46× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $2.5B | $515.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $443.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | $473.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.9B | $609.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.8B | $590.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.0B | $643.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0B | $672.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.8B | $796.5M |
| Q4 25 | $5.9B | $950.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.9B | $919.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.9B | $914.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.9B | $988.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.9B | $905.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.9B | $820.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.9B | $820.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.9B | $819.4M |
| Q4 25 | $5.5B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.0B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.7B | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.0B | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.6B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.6B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.4B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.1B | $2.2B |
| Q4 25 | $16.7B | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $16.3B | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $16.1B | $4.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $15.2B | $4.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.0B | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $15.7B | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $15.4B | $4.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $15.0B | $4.3B |
| Q4 25 | 1.08× | 0.46× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.18× | 0.44× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.25× | 0.44× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.47× | 0.49× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.64× | 0.45× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.65× | 0.38× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.75× | 0.38× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.90× | 0.38× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $1.4B | $149.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $1.3B | $54.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 38.3% | 6.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 3.2% | 11.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.19× | 151.48× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $4.4B | $-89.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $149.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $27.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $-8.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $16.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $849.5M | $67.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $995.2M | $50.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $892.6M | $-24.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $910.0M | $80.2M |
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $54.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $-24.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $-73.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $990.0M | $-45.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $757.2M | $-77.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $934.8M | $-9.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $831.9M | $-87.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $838.2M | $27.1M |
| Q4 25 | 38.3% | 6.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 33.2% | -3.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.5% | -9.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 32.3% | -6.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.6% | -10.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 32.9% | -1.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 32.4% | -11.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 35.5% | 3.6% |
| Q4 25 | 3.2% | 11.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.0% | 6.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.2% | 8.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.7% | 8.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.0% | 20.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.1% | 8.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.4% | 8.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.0% | 7.1% |
| Q4 25 | 1.19× | 151.48× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.04× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.97× | -4.39× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.99× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.03× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.05× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.07× | -1.05× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.51× | 2.59× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
KLAC
| Wafer Inspection | $1.6B | 48% |
| Services | $786.1M | 24% |
| Patterning | $696.2M | 21% |
| Specialty Semiconductor Process | $121.6M | 4% |
| PCB And Component Inspection | $80.3M | 2% |
| Other Revenue | $40.2M | 1% |
VSH
| Resistors Segment | $189.4M | 24% |
| Diodes Segment | $154.2M | 19% |
| Capacitors Segment | $136.5M | 17% |
| Other | $126.4M | 16% |
| Inductors Segment | $92.6M | 12% |
| Optoelectronic Components Segment | $55.7M | 7% |
| EMS Companies | $51.6M | 6% |
