vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Astera Labs, Inc. (ALAB) and LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (LSCC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Astera Labs, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($270.6M vs $145.8M, roughly 1.9× LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP). Astera Labs, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 16.6% vs -5.2%, a 21.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Astera Labs, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (91.8% vs 24.2%). Astera Labs, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($76.6M vs $44.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Astera Labs, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (103.6% CAGR vs 1.8%).
Astera Labs, Inc. is an American fabless semiconductor manufacturer and artificial intelligence company. The company specializes in designing high-speed connectivity solutions for data centers and AI infrastructure. The company has been listed on the Nasdaq since March 2024.
Lattice Semiconductor Corporation is an American semiconductor company specializing in the design and manufacturing of low power field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). Headquartered in the Silicon Forest area of Hillsboro, Oregon, the company also has operations in San Jose, Calif., Shanghai, Manila, Penang, and Singapore. Lattice Semiconductor has more than 1000 employees and an annual revenue of more than $660 million as of 2022. The company was founded in 1983 and went public in 1989. It ...
ALAB vs LSCC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $270.6M | $145.8M |
| Net Profit | $45.0M | $-7.6M |
| Gross Margin | 75.6% | 68.5% |
| Operating Margin | 24.7% | 0.7% |
| Net Margin | 16.6% | -5.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 91.8% | 24.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | 82.0% | -146.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.25 | $-0.06 |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $145.8M | ||
| Q4 25 | $270.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $230.6M | $133.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $191.9M | $124.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $159.4M | $120.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $141.1M | $117.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $113.1M | $127.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $76.8M | $124.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | $-7.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | $45.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $91.1M | $2.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $51.2M | $2.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $31.8M | $5.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $24.7M | $16.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-7.6M | $7.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-7.5M | $22.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | 68.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | 75.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 76.2% | 67.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 75.8% | 68.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 74.9% | 68.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 74.0% | 61.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 77.7% | 69.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 77.9% | 68.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 25 | 24.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.0% | -1.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.7% | 3.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.1% | 5.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.1% | -10.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -7.9% | 5.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -31.7% | 18.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | -5.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | 16.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 39.5% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 26.7% | 2.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.0% | 4.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.5% | 14.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -6.7% | 5.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -9.8% | 18.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | $-0.06 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.25 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.50 | $0.02 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.29 | $0.02 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.18 | $0.04 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.23 | $0.12 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.05 | $0.05 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.05 | $0.16 |
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 | $167.6M | $133.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.4B | $714.1M |
| Total Assets | $1.5B | $883.1M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $133.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | $167.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $140.4M | $117.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $162.3M | $107.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $86.4M | $127.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $79.6M | $136.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $126.1M | $124.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $421.1M | $109.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | $714.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $706.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $687.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $707.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $964.8M | $710.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $889.6M | $703.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $845.3M | $698.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | $883.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $844.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $808.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $823.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $843.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $983.1M | $853.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $915.5M | $827.5M |
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 | $95.3M | $57.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $76.6M | $44.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 28.3% | 30.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 6.9% | 9.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 2.12× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $281.8M | $132.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $57.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | $95.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $78.2M | $47.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $135.4M | $38.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.5M | $31.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $39.7M | $45.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $63.5M | $44.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $29.8M | $21.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | $44.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $76.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $65.9M | $34.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $133.3M | $31.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.0M | $23.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $24.3M | $39.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $46.8M | $39.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.5M | $14.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | 30.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | 28.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 28.6% | 25.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 69.5% | 25.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.7% | 19.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.2% | 33.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 41.4% | 31.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 37.1% | 11.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | 9.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | 6.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.3% | 9.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.1% | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.8% | 7.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.9% | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.8% | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.7% | 5.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.12× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.86× | 16.86× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.64× | 13.23× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.33× | 6.35× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.61× | 2.75× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 6.12× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.97× |
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.
