vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of NetApp (NTAP) and Supermicro (SMCI), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Supermicro is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($12.7B vs $1.7B, roughly 7.4× NetApp). NetApp runs the higher net margin — 17.9% vs 3.2%, a 14.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Supermicro posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (123.4% vs 2.8%). NetApp produced more free cash flow last quarter ($78.0M vs $-45.1M). Over the past eight quarters, Supermicro's revenue compounded faster (81.5% CAGR vs 3.0%).
NetApp, Inc. is an American data infrastructure company that provides unified data storage, integrated data services, and cloud operations (CloudOps) solutions to enterprise customers. The company is based in San Jose, California. It has ranked in the Fortune 500 from 2012 to 2021. Founded in 1992 with an initial public offering in 1995, NetApp offers cloud data services for management of applications and data both online and physically.
Super Micro Computer, Inc., doing business as Supermicro, is an American information technology company based in San Jose, California. The company is one of the largest producers of high-performance and high-efficiency servers, while also providing server management software, and storage systems for various markets, including enterprise data centers, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, 5G, and edge computing.
NTAP vs SMCI — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q2 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.7B | $12.7B |
| Net Profit | $305.0M | $400.6M |
| Gross Margin | 72.0% | 6.3% |
| Operating Margin | 23.4% | 3.7% |
| Net Margin | 17.9% | 3.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 2.8% | 123.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | 2.0% | 24.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.51 | $0.60 |
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 | $1.7B | $12.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | $5.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6B | $4.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7B | $5.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $5.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $5.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.6B | $3.9B |
| Q4 25 | $305.0M | $400.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $233.0M | $168.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $340.0M | $195.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $299.0M | $108.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $299.0M | $320.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $248.0M | $424.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $291.0M | $297.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $313.0M | $402.5M |
| Q4 25 | 72.0% | 6.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 70.4% | 9.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 68.9% | 9.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 69.8% | 9.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 71.0% | 11.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 71.3% | 13.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 70.5% | 10.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 71.7% | 15.5% |
| Q4 25 | 23.4% | 3.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.8% | 3.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.1% | 4.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.1% | 3.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 20.8% | 6.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 18.3% | 8.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.9% | 5.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 22.8% | 9.8% |
| Q4 25 | 17.9% | 3.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.9% | 3.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.6% | 3.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 18.2% | 2.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 18.0% | 5.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.1% | 7.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.4% | 5.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 19.5% | 10.5% |
| Q4 25 | $1.51 | $0.60 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.15 | $0.26 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.64 | $0.33 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.44 | $0.17 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.42 | $0.51 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.17 | $0.67 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.36 | $-12.49 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.48 | $6.56 |
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 | $3.0B | $4.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.5B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $986.0M | $7.0B |
| Total Assets | $9.6B | $28.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 2.52× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $3.0B | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3B | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.8B | $5.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.3B | $2.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.0B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.3B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.9B | $2.1B |
| Q4 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.4B | — |
| Q4 25 | $986.0M | $7.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $975.0M | $6.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $6.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $995.0M | $6.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $892.0M | $6.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $929.0M | $5.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $5.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $994.0M | $5.1B |
| Q4 25 | $9.6B | $28.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.7B | $14.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.8B | $14.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.0B | $10.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.0B | $9.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.3B | $10.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.9B | $9.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.4B | $8.9B |
| Q4 25 | 2.52× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.55× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.11× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.00× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.23× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.58× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.09× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.41× | — |
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 | $127.0M | $-23.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $78.0M | $-45.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 4.6% | -0.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.9% | 0.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.42× | -0.06× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $440.1M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $127.0M | $-23.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $673.0M | $-917.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $863.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $385.0M | $626.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-239.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $341.0M | $408.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $613.0M | $-641.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $484.0M | $-1.5B |
| Q4 25 | $78.0M | $-45.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $620.0M | $-949.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $840.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $338.0M | $594.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-267.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $300.0M | $364.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $567.0M | $-655.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $448.0M | $-1.6B |
| Q4 25 | 4.6% | -0.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 39.8% | -18.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 14.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.6% | 12.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -4.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.5% | 6.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 34.0% | -12.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 27.9% | -41.9% |
| Q4 25 | 2.9% | 0.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.4% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.9% | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.7% | 0.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.8% | 0.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.2% | 2.4% |
| Q4 25 | 0.42× | -0.06× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.89× | -5.45× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 4.43× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.29× | 5.76× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -0.75× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.38× | 0.96× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.11× | -2.16× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.55× | -3.78× |
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
NTAP
| Products | $788.0M | 46% |
| Support | $647.0M | 38% |
| Public Cloud Segment | $171.0M | 10% |
| Professional And Other Services | $99.0M | 6% |
SMCI
Segment breakdown not available.
