vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Monolithic Power Systems (MPWR) and Qualcomm (QCOM), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Qualcomm is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($12.3B vs $751.2M, roughly 16.3× Monolithic Power Systems). Qualcomm runs the higher net margin — 22.9% vs 24.5%, a 1.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Monolithic Power Systems posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (20.8% vs 5.0%). Qualcomm produced more free cash flow last quarter ($4.4B vs $63.9M). Over the past eight quarters, Monolithic Power Systems's revenue compounded faster (28.1% CAGR vs 14.2%).
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. is an American, publicly traded company headquartered in Kirkland, Washington. It operates in more than 15 locations worldwide.
Qualcomm Incorporated is an American multinational corporation headquartered in San Diego, California, and incorporated in Delaware. It creates semiconductors, software and services related to wireless technology. It owns patents critical to the 5G, 4G, CDMA2000, TD-SCDMA and WCDMA mobile communications standards.
MPWR vs QCOM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $751.2M | $12.3B |
| Net Profit | $171.7M | $3.0B |
| Gross Margin | 55.2% | 54.6% |
| Operating Margin | 26.6% | 27.5% |
| Net Margin | 22.9% | 24.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 20.8% | 5.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -86.3% | -5.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $3.50 | $2.78 |
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 | $751.2M | $12.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $737.2M | $11.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $664.6M | $10.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $637.6M | $11.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $621.7M | $11.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $620.1M | $10.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $507.4M | $9.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $457.9M | $9.4B |
| Q4 25 | $171.7M | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $179.8M | $-3.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $135.0M | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $135.1M | $2.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $144.4M | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $100.4M | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $92.5M | $2.3B |
| Q4 25 | 55.2% | 54.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 55.1% | 55.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 55.1% | 55.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 55.4% | 55.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 55.4% | 55.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 55.4% | 56.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 55.3% | 55.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 55.1% | 56.3% |
| Q4 25 | 26.6% | 27.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 26.5% | 25.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 24.8% | 26.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 26.5% | 28.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 26.3% | 30.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.5% | 25.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.0% | 23.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 20.9% | 24.9% |
| Q4 25 | 22.9% | 24.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.4% | -27.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.3% | 25.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 21.2% | 25.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 201.8% | 27.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 23.3% | 28.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.8% | 22.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 20.2% | 24.8% |
| Q4 25 | $3.50 | $2.78 | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.74 | $-2.77 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.81 | $2.43 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.81 | $2.52 | ||
| Q4 24 | $25.71 | $2.83 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.95 | $2.57 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.05 | $1.88 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.89 | $2.06 |
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 | $1.3B | $11.8B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $14.8B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.5B | $23.1B |
| Total Assets | $4.2B | $53.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.64× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $11.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $10.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $10.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $13.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $862.9M | $14.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $13.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3B | $13.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.3B | $13.9B |
| Q4 25 | — | $14.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $14.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $14.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $13.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $13.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $13.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $13.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $14.5B |
| Q4 25 | $3.5B | $23.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.4B | $21.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2B | $27.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.1B | $27.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $26.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.4B | $26.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.2B | $24.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | $24.5B |
| Q4 25 | $4.2B | $53.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.1B | $50.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9B | $54.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.7B | $55.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.5B | $55.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.9B | $55.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.6B | $52.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.6B | $53.2B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.64× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.70× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.54× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.48× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.49× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.51× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.53× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.59× |
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 | $104.9M | $5.0B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $63.9M | $4.4B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 8.5% | 36.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 5.5% | 4.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.61× | 1.65× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $666.2M | $12.9B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $104.9M | $5.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $239.3M | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $237.6M | $2.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $256.4M | $2.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $167.7M | $4.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $231.7M | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $141.0M | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $248.1M | $3.6B |
| Q4 25 | $63.9M | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $196.8M | $3.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $189.5M | $2.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $216.0M | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $102.9M | $4.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $197.9M | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $109.5M | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $232.1M | $3.4B |
| Q4 25 | 8.5% | 36.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 26.7% | 31.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 28.5% | 24.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 33.9% | 21.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.5% | 36.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 31.9% | 23.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.6% | 28.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 50.7% | 35.9% |
| Q4 25 | 5.5% | 4.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.8% | 3.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.2% | 2.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.3% | 1.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.4% | 2.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.5% | 2.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.2% | 4.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.5% | 2.0% |
| Q4 25 | 0.61× | 1.65× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.33× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.76× | 1.08× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.90× | 0.91× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.13× | 1.44× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.60× | 0.91× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.40× | 1.43× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.68× | 1.53× |
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
MPWR
Segment breakdown not available.
QCOM
| Handsets | $7.8B | 64% |
| Io T | $1.7B | 14% |
| Qtl | $1.6B | 13% |
| Automotive | $1.1B | 9% |
