vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of SANMINA CORP (SANM) and Venture Global, Inc. (VG). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Venture Global, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.4B vs $3.2B, roughly 1.4× SANMINA CORP). Venture Global, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 26.8% vs 1.5%, a 25.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Venture Global, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (191.7% vs 59.0%). SANMINA CORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($91.9M vs $-1.5B). Over the past eight quarters, Venture Global, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (77.3% CAGR vs 31.9%).
Sanmina Corporation is an American electronics manufacturing services (EMS) provider headquartered in San Jose, California that serves original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in communications and computer hardware fields. The firm has nearly 80 manufacturing sites, and is one of the world’s largest independent manufacturers of printed circuit boards and backplanes. As of 2022, it is ranked number 482 in the Fortune 500 list.
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".
SANM vs VG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.2B | $4.4B |
| Net Profit | $49.3M | $1.2B |
| Gross Margin | 7.6% | — |
| Operating Margin | 2.3% | 38.7% |
| Net Margin | 1.5% | 26.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 59.0% | 191.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -24.2% | 20.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.89 | $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.
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.1B | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.0B | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | $2.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.0B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.0B | $926.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.8B | $1.4B |
| Q4 25 | $49.3M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $48.1M | $550.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $68.6M | $475.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.2M | $517.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $65.0M | $990.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.4M | $-294.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $51.6M | $352.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $52.5M | $698.0M |
| Q4 25 | 7.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.3% | 38.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.7% | 39.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.7% | 33.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.6% | 37.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.4% | 39.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.4% | 20.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.5% | 32.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.1% | 43.6% |
| Q4 25 | 1.5% | 26.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.3% | 16.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.4% | 15.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.2% | 17.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.2% | 65.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.0% | -31.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.8% | 31.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.9% | 49.4% |
| Q4 25 | $0.89 | $0.41 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.88 | $0.16 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.26 | $0.14 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.16 | $0.15 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.16 | $0.35 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.09 | $-0.15 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.91 | $0.12 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.93 | $0.25 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.4B | $2.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.2B | $34.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.7B | $6.7B |
| Total Assets | $9.8B | $53.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.82× | 5.07× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $926.3M | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $797.9M | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $647.1M | $3.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $642.4M | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $625.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $657.7M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $650.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | $2.2B | $34.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $300.5M | $32.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $30.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $29.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $29.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $6.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5B | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.5B | $5.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.4B | $4.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4B | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.3B | — |
| Q4 25 | $9.8B | $53.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.9B | $50.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.2B | $46.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.0B | $45.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.8B | $43.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.8B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.7B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.7B | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.82× | 5.07× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.12× | 5.73× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 5.69× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 6.01× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 10.11× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 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 | $178.7M | $2.1B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $91.9M | $-1.5B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 2.9% | -34.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.7% | 81.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 3.63× | 1.77× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $518.3M | $-6.8B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $178.7M | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $199.1M | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $200.8M | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $156.9M | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $63.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $51.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $90.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $72.3M | $638.0M |
| Q4 25 | $91.9M | $-1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $136.6M | $-1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $163.7M | $-1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $126.1M | $-2.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $46.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $27.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $67.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $42.7M | $-2.4B |
| Q4 25 | 2.9% | -34.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.5% | -42.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.0% | -49.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.4% | -81.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.3% | -167.3% |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | 81.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.0% | 98.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.8% | 96.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.5% | 119.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.6% | 212.4% |
| Q4 25 | 3.63× | 1.77× | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.14× | 3.42× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.93× | 3.07× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.44× | 2.15× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.98× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.85× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.74× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.38× | 0.91× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
SANM
| Industrial And Energy Medical Defense And Aerospace And Automotive And Transportation | $1.2B | 38% |
| ZT Systems | $1.1B | 34% |
| Other Segments CPS | $434.3M | 14% |
| CPS Third Party Revenue | $412.7M | 13% |
| Change In Accounting Method Accounted For As Change In Estimate | $2.7M | 0% |
VG
| Plaquemines Project Segment | $3.4B | 76% |
| Calcasieu Project Segment | $841.0M | 19% |
| Other | $208.0M | 5% |
