vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP (LPX) and PROCORE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (PCOR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($566.0M vs $349.1M, roughly 1.6× PROCORE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.). LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP runs the higher net margin — -1.4% vs -10.8%, a 9.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, PROCORE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.6% vs -16.9%). PROCORE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($109.2M vs $-8.0M). Over the past eight quarters, PROCORE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'s revenue compounded faster (13.8% CAGR vs -11.6%).
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (LP) is an American building materials manufacturer. The company was founded in 1973 and LP pioneered the U.S. production of oriented strand board (OSB) panels. Currently based in Nashville, Tennessee, LP is the world's largest producer of OSB and manufactures engineered wood building products. LP products are sold to builders and homeowners through building materials distributors and dealers and retail home centers.
Procore Technologies is an American construction management software as a service company founded in 2002, with headquarters in Carpinteria, California. Procore hosts a platform to connect those involved in the construction industry on a global platform. The software allows for the creation of simplified workflows and displays a consolidated view of construction products that includes the tracking of tasks, management of project workflows, and scheduling.
LPX vs PCOR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $566.0M | $349.1M |
| Net Profit | $-8.0M | $-37.6M |
| Gross Margin | 15.0% | 80.1% |
| Operating Margin | -1.6% | -12.3% |
| Net Margin | -1.4% | -10.8% |
| Revenue YoY | -16.9% | 15.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | -112.9% | 39.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.12 | $-0.25 |
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 | $566.0M | $349.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $663.0M | $338.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $755.0M | $323.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $724.0M | $310.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $681.0M | $302.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $722.0M | $295.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $814.0M | $284.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $724.0M | $269.4M |
| Q4 25 | $-8.0M | $-37.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.0M | $-9.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $54.0M | $-21.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $91.0M | $-33.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $62.0M | $-62.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $90.0M | $-26.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $160.0M | $-6.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $108.0M | $-11.0M |
| Q4 25 | 15.0% | 80.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.5% | 79.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 23.6% | 79.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 27.2% | 79.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 23.8% | 81.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.7% | 81.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 32.3% | 83.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.6% | 83.0% |
| Q4 25 | -1.6% | -12.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.7% | -4.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.6% | -9.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.6% | -11.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.0% | -21.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.1% | -12.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.8% | -5.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 20.0% | -7.0% |
| Q4 25 | -1.4% | -10.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.4% | -2.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.2% | -6.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.6% | -10.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.1% | -20.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.5% | -8.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.7% | -2.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 14.9% | -4.1% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.12 | $-0.25 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.13 | $-0.06 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.77 | $-0.14 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.30 | $-0.22 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.90 | $-0.42 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.28 | $-0.18 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.23 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.48 | $-0.08 |
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 | $292.0M | $768.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $348.0M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.7B | $1.3B |
| Total Assets | $2.6B | $2.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.20× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $292.0M | $768.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $316.0M | $684.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $333.0M | $620.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $256.0M | $566.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $340.0M | $775.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $346.0M | $756.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $317.0M | $735.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $244.0M | $744.6M |
| Q4 25 | $348.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $348.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $348.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $348.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $348.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $347.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $347.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $347.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.7B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.7B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.7B | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.6B | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $2.6B | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7B | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.6B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.5B | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.5B | $1.9B |
| Q4 25 | 0.20× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.20× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.20× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.21× | — |
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 | $67.0M | $114.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-8.0M | $109.2M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -1.4% | 31.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 13.3% | 1.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $91.0M | $282.2M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $67.0M | $114.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $89.0M | $88.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $162.0M | $30.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.0M | $66.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $105.0M | $29.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $183.0M | $39.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $212.0M | $58.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $105.0M | $69.1M |
| Q4 25 | $-8.0M | $109.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.0M | $83.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $94.0M | $27.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $0 | $62.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $43.0M | $17.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $139.0M | $35.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $176.0M | $56.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $64.0M | $67.1M |
| Q4 25 | -1.4% | 31.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.8% | 24.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.5% | 8.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.0% | 20.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.3% | 5.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.3% | 12.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.6% | 20.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.8% | 24.9% |
| Q4 25 | 13.3% | 1.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.7% | 1.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.0% | 0.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.8% | 1.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.1% | 3.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.1% | 1.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.4% | 0.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.7% | 0.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.89× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.00× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.70× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.69× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.03× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.32× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.97× | — |
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
LPX
| OS Bvalueadd | $472.0M | 83% |
| Other | $84.0M | 15% |
| Otherproducts | $10.0M | 2% |
PCOR
| US | $298.3M | 85% |
| Non Us | $50.9M | 15% |
