vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of IMPINJ INC (PI) and Perma-Pipe International Holdings, Inc. (PPIH). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
IMPINJ INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($74.3M vs $61.1M, roughly 1.2× Perma-Pipe International Holdings, Inc.). IMPINJ INC runs the higher net margin — 11.2% vs 10.3%, a 0.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Perma-Pipe International Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (47.1% vs -0.0%). Perma-Pipe International Holdings, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($12.4M vs $2.2M). Over the past eight quarters, Perma-Pipe International Holdings, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (23.4% CAGR vs -14.9%).
Impinj, Inc. is an American manufacturer of radio-frequency identification (RFID) devices and software. The company was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. The company was started based on the research done at the California Institute of Technology by Carver Mead and Chris Diorio. Impinj currently produces EPC Class 1, Gen 2 passive UHF RFID chips, RFID readers, RFID reader chips, and RFID antennas, and software applications for encoding chips, and gathering business ...
Perma-Pipe International Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and supplies pre-insulated piping systems and integrated leak detection solutions. Its offerings cater to oil & gas, district heating and cooling, industrial, and municipal infrastructure segments, with a global footprint spanning North America, the Middle East, Europe and Asia.
PI vs PPIH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $74.3M | $61.1M |
| Net Profit | $8.3M | $6.3M |
| Gross Margin | 49.1% | 34.4% |
| Operating Margin | 30.5% | 18.6% |
| Net Margin | 11.2% | 10.3% |
| Revenue YoY | -0.0% | 47.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 153.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.14 | $0.77 |
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 | $74.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $92.8M | $61.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $96.1M | $47.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $97.9M | $46.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $74.3M | $45.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $91.6M | $41.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $95.2M | $37.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $102.5M | $34.3M |
| Q1 26 | $8.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-1.1M | $6.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-12.8M | $851.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.6M | $5.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-8.5M | $1.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-2.7M | $2.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $221.0K | $3.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.0M | $1.4M |
| Q1 26 | 49.1% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 51.8% | 34.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 50.3% | 30.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 57.8% | 35.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 49.4% | 33.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 50.5% | 33.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 50.0% | 35.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 56.1% | 30.6% |
| Q1 26 | 30.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -2.9% | 18.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.7% | 6.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.1% | 16.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -12.9% | 12.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | -3.9% | 13.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -0.8% | 16.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.8% | 9.1% |
| Q1 26 | 11.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -1.2% | 10.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | -13.3% | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.8% | 10.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -11.4% | 3.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -2.9% | 6.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.2% | 8.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.7% | 4.2% |
| Q1 26 | $0.14 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-0.02 | $0.77 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.44 | $0.10 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.39 | $0.61 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.30 | $0.23 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.06 | $0.31 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.01 | $0.40 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.34 | $0.18 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $131.8M | $27.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $241.5M | $12.7M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $85.8M |
| Total Assets | $502.5M | $217.0M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.15× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $131.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $175.3M | $27.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $190.1M | $17.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $193.2M | $18.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $147.9M | $15.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $164.7M | $13.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $170.3M | $9.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $220.2M | $7.7M |
| Q1 26 | $241.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $280.9M | $12.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $280.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $15.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $283.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $209.2M | $85.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $195.0M | $80.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $187.7M | $77.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $160.6M | $72.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $149.9M | $71.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $136.1M | $68.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $117.0M | $65.5M |
| Q1 26 | $502.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $545.2M | $217.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $516.5M | $189.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $508.8M | $178.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $479.8M | $165.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $489.1M | $160.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $476.4M | $157.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $446.1M | $155.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.34× | 0.15× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.44× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.21× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.89× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
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 | — | $17.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $2.2M | $12.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 3.0% | 20.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 8.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 2.74× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $61.1M | $12.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $15.1M | $17.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $20.9M | $-2.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $33.9M | $733.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-11.1M | $6.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $12.6M | $5.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.1M | $2.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $45.5M | $-73.0K |
| Q1 26 | $2.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $13.6M | $12.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.0M | $-4.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $27.3M | $-194.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-13.0M | $4.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.5M | $4.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.7M | $2.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $44.1M | $-662.0K |
| Q1 26 | 3.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 14.7% | 20.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.7% | -9.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 27.9% | -0.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -17.5% | 10.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.3% | 11.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.9% | 5.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 43.0% | -1.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.6% | 8.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.1% | 5.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.7% | 2.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.5% | 2.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.5% | 0.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.7% | 1.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.3% | 1.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 2.74× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -2.40× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.93× | 0.15× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.42× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.07× | ||
| Q3 24 | 45.56× | 0.86× | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.56× | -0.05× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
