vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. (MTSI) and Pagaya Technologies Ltd. (PGY). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Pagaya Technologies Ltd. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($321.0M vs $289.0M, roughly 1.1× MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.). MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 16.0% vs 10.7%, a 5.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (22.5% vs 16.5%). Over the past eight quarters, MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (23.2% CAGR vs 16.4%).
MACOM Technology Solutions, Inc. is an American developer and producer of radio, microwave, and millimeter wave semiconductor devices and components. The company is headquartered in Lowell, Massachusetts, and in 2005 was Lowell's largest private employer. MACOM is certified to the ISO 9001 international quality standard and ISO 14001 environmental standard. The company has design centers and sales offices in North America, Europe, Asia and Australia.
Pagaya Technologies is an Israeli-American financial technology company based in New York City. The company evaluates loan applications using artificial intelligence (AI) with the aim of modernizing credit checks. The company has been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 2022. According to its own figures, Pagaya had assessed loan applications with a volume of around US$2.6 trillion and brokered a cumulative loan volume of around US$28 billion by 2024. Its customers are mainly banks an...
MTSI vs PGY — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $289.0M | $321.0M |
| Net Profit | $46.3M | $34.3M |
| Gross Margin | 56.9% | 40.8% |
| Operating Margin | 17.6% | 24.8% |
| Net Margin | 16.0% | 10.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 22.5% | 16.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | 46.3% | 114.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.60 | $0.40 |
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.
| Q2 26 | $289.0M | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $271.6M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $261.2M | $321.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $252.1M | $339.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $235.9M | $317.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $218.1M | $282.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $275.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $200.7M | $249.3M |
| Q2 26 | $46.3M | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $48.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $45.1M | $34.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $36.5M | $22.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $31.7M | $16.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-167.5M | $7.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-237.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $29.4M | $-67.5M |
| Q2 26 | 56.9% | — | ||
| Q1 26 | 55.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 54.5% | 40.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 55.3% | 41.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 55.2% | 39.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 53.7% | 40.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 42.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 54.7% | 40.2% |
| Q2 26 | 17.6% | — | ||
| Q1 26 | 15.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 15.2% | 24.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.9% | 23.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.8% | 17.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.0% | 16.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 11.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.7% | 9.0% |
| Q2 26 | 16.0% | — | ||
| Q1 26 | 18.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 17.3% | 10.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.5% | 6.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.4% | 5.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | -76.8% | 2.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -86.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.7% | -27.1% |
| Q2 26 | $0.60 | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $0.64 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.67 | $0.40 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.48 | $0.23 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.42 | $0.20 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-2.30 | $0.10 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-3.36 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.40 | $-0.93 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $664.9M | $235.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $0 | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $480.0M |
| Total Assets | $2.0B | $1.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q2 26 | $664.9M | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $768.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $786.0M | $235.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $735.2M | $218.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $681.5M | $183.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $656.5M | $186.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $187.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $581.9M | $147.1M |
| Q2 26 | $0 | — | ||
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $317.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $230.2M |
| Q2 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $480.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $438.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $366.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $335.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $326.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $462.3M |
| Q2 26 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $2.1B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.1B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | $1.4B |
| Q2 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.95× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.50× |
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 | $121.6M | $79.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $76.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 23.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 1.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 2.62× | 2.33× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $224.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q2 26 | $121.6M | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $42.9M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $69.6M | $79.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.4M | $67.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $38.7M | $57.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $66.7M | $34.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $27.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $62.3M | $-7.1M |
| Q2 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | $30.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $49.4M | $76.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $51.6M | $63.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $30.5M | $53.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $61.3M | $30.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $23.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $57.1M | $-11.3M |
| Q2 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | 11.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 18.9% | 23.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.5% | 18.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.9% | 16.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 28.1% | 10.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 8.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 28.5% | -4.6% |
| Q2 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | 4.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 7.7% | 1.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.5% | 1.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.5% | 1.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.4% | 1.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.6% | 1.7% |
| Q2 26 | 2.62× | — | ||
| Q1 26 | 0.88× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.54× | 2.33× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.65× | 2.97× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.22× | 3.44× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 4.36× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.12× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
MTSI
Segment breakdown not available.
PGY
| Network AI Fees | $287.4M | 90% |
| Financial Service | $33.6M | 10% |
