vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Lam Research (LRCX) and Venture Global, Inc. (VG). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Lam Research is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($5.8B vs $4.4B, roughly 1.3× Venture Global, Inc.). Lam Research runs the higher net margin — 31.2% vs 26.8%, a 4.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Venture Global, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (191.7% vs 23.8%). Over the past eight quarters, Venture Global, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (77.3% CAGR vs 22.8%).
Lam Research Corporation is an American supplier of wafer-fabrication equipment and related services to the semiconductor industry. Its products are used primarily in front-end wafer processing, which involves the steps that create the active components of semiconductor devices and their wiring (interconnects). The company also builds equipment for back-end wafer-level packaging (WLP) and for related manufacturing markets such as for microelectromechanical systems (MEMS).
S&P Global Inc. is an American publicly traded corporation headquartered in Manhattan, New York. Its primary areas of business are financial information, analytics, and energy and commodities intelligence. It is the parent company of S&P Global Ratings, S&P Global Energy, S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Global Mobility, and the Indian credit rating agency CRISIL. It is also the majority owner of the S&P Dow Jones Indices joint venture. "S&P" is a shortening of "Standard and Poor's".
LRCX vs VG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $5.8B | $4.4B |
| Net Profit | $1.8B | $1.2B |
| Gross Margin | 49.8% | — |
| Operating Margin | 35.0% | 38.7% |
| Net Margin | 31.2% | 26.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 23.8% | 191.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 37.2% | 20.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.45 | $0.41 |
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 | $5.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.3B | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.3B | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.2B | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.7B | $2.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.4B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.2B | $926.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.9B | $1.1B |
| Q1 26 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.6B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | $550.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | $475.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $517.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $990.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $-294.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $352.0M |
| Q1 26 | 49.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 49.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 50.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 50.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 49.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 47.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 48.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 47.5% | — |
| Q1 26 | 35.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 33.9% | 38.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 34.4% | 39.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.7% | 33.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 33.1% | 37.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 30.5% | 39.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 30.3% | 20.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 29.1% | 32.8% |
| Q1 26 | 31.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 29.8% | 26.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 29.5% | 16.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.3% | 15.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 28.2% | 17.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 27.2% | 65.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.8% | -31.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 26.4% | 31.8% |
| Q1 26 | $1.45 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.26 | $0.41 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.24 | $0.16 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.34 | $0.14 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.03 | $0.15 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.92 | $0.35 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.86 | $-0.15 | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.78 | $0.12 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $4.8B | $2.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $34.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $6.7B |
| Total Assets | $20.8B | $53.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 5.07× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $4.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $6.2B | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.7B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.4B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.5B | $3.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.7B | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.8B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.7B | $34.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.7B | $32.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.7B | $30.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.7B | $29.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.5B | $29.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.5B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $10.1B | $6.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.2B | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9B | $5.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.5B | $4.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.8B | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.5B | — |
| Q1 26 | $20.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $21.4B | $53.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $21.9B | $50.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $21.3B | $46.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $20.0B | $45.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.8B | $43.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $19.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.7B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.37× | 5.07× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.37× | 5.73× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.38× | 5.69× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.39× | 6.01× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.51× | 10.11× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.53× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.52× | — |
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 | $1.1B | $2.1B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-1.5B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -34.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 5.7% | 81.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.63× | 1.77× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-6.8B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.8B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.6B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $741.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $862.4M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $-1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | $-1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.4B | $-1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $-2.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $553.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $761.7M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 22.8% | -34.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 29.9% | -42.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 46.1% | -49.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 21.6% | -81.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 35.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.7% | — |
| Q1 26 | 5.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 4.9% | 81.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.5% | 98.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.3% | 96.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.1% | 119.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.6% | — |
| Q1 26 | 0.63× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.93× | 1.77× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.13× | 3.42× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.48× | 3.07× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.98× | 2.15× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.62× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.40× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.85× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
LRCX
Segment breakdown not available.
VG
| Plaquemines Project Segment | $3.4B | 76% |
| Calcasieu Project Segment | $841.0M | 19% |
| Other | $208.0M | 5% |
