vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ASHLAND INC. (ASH) and Corning Inc. (GLW), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Corning Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.2B vs $386.0M, roughly 10.9× ASHLAND INC.). Corning Inc. runs the higher net margin — -3.1% vs 12.8%, a 15.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Corning Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (20.4% vs -4.7%). Corning Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($620.0M vs $111.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Corning Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (19.0% CAGR vs -18.1%).
Ashland, Inc., is an American chemical company headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. The company began as an oil refinery in the city of Ashland, Kentucky, in 1924, before moving to Wilmington in 1994. The company has five wholly owned divisions, which include Chemical Intermediates and Solvents, composites, industrial specialties, personal and home care, pharmaceuticals, food and beverage, and agriculture. Until 2017, the company was the primary manufacturer of Valvoline.
Corning Incorporated is an American multinational technology company specializing in glass, ceramics, and related materials and technologies including advanced optics, primarily for industrial and scientific applications. Founded in 1851, the company was called Corning Glass Works for most of its history. Corning was known during the 20th century for its consumer product lines, such as including CorningWare and Visions Pyroceram-based cookware, Corelle Vitrelle tableware, and Pyrex glass bake...
ASH vs GLW — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $386.0M | $4.2B |
| Net Profit | $-12.0M | $540.0M |
| Gross Margin | 27.2% | 35.5% |
| Operating Margin | -1.6% | 15.9% |
| Net Margin | -3.1% | 12.8% |
| Revenue YoY | -4.7% | 20.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | 92.7% | 74.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.26 | $0.61 |
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 | $386.0M | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $477.0M | $4.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $463.0M | $3.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $479.0M | $3.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $405.0M | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $521.0M | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $544.0M | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $575.0M | $3.0B |
| Q4 25 | $-12.0M | $540.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $31.0M | $430.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-742.0M | $469.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $31.0M | $157.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-165.0M | $310.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $17.0M | $-117.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.0M | $104.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $120.0M | $209.0M |
| Q4 25 | 27.2% | 35.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 33.3% | 37.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 28.5% | 36.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 30.7% | 35.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 27.4% | 34.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 33.2% | 33.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 34.2% | 29.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 28.0% | 33.4% |
| Q4 25 | -1.6% | 15.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.8% | 14.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -152.9% | 14.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.6% | 12.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -44.2% | 11.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.1% | 8.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -11.2% | 5.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.7% | 8.5% |
| Q4 25 | -3.1% | 12.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.5% | 10.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -160.3% | 12.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.5% | 4.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | -40.7% | 8.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.3% | -3.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.1% | 3.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 20.9% | 7.0% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.26 | $0.61 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.83 | $0.50 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-16.21 | $0.54 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.65 | $0.18 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-3.50 | $0.36 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.34 | $-0.14 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.12 | $0.12 | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.39 | $0.24 |
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 | $304.0M | $1.5B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $1.4B | $7.6B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.9B | $11.8B |
| Total Assets | $4.5B | $31.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.74× | 0.65× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $304.0M | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $215.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $207.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $168.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $219.0M | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $300.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $399.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $439.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $7.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $7.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $6.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $7.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $6.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $7.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3B | $6.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.3B | $7.0B |
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $11.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $11.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | $11.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $10.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $10.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.9B | $11.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.0B | $10.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.1B | $11.2B |
| Q4 25 | $4.5B | $31.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.6B | $29.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.6B | $28.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.2B | $27.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.2B | $27.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.6B | $28.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.7B | $27.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.9B | $27.6B |
| Q4 25 | 0.74× | 0.65× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.73× | 0.64× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.73× | 0.60× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.52× | 0.65× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.51× | 0.64× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.47× | 0.64× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.45× | 0.65× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.42× | 0.63× |
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 | $125.0M | $1.1B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $111.0M | $620.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 28.8% | 14.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 3.6% | 10.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 1.95× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $200.0M | $1.4B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $125.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $40.0M | $784.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $115.0M | $708.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.0M | $151.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-30.0M | $623.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $80.0M | $699.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $127.0M | $521.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $54.0M | $96.0M |
| Q4 25 | $111.0M | $620.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.0M | $450.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $95.0M | $400.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-12.0M | $-57.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-53.0M | $369.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $42.0M | $482.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $98.0M | $279.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $20.0M | $-156.0M |
| Q4 25 | 28.8% | 14.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.3% | 11.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.5% | 10.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -2.5% | -1.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -13.1% | 10.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.1% | 14.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 18.0% | 8.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.5% | -5.2% |
| Q4 25 | 3.6% | 10.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.1% | 8.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.3% | 8.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.4% | 6.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.7% | 7.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.3% | 6.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.3% | 7.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.9% | 8.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.95× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.29× | 1.82× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.51× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.29× | 0.96× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.01× | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.71× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.17× | 5.01× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.45× | 0.46× |
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
ASH
| Personal Care And Household | $123.0M | 32% |
| Other | $120.0M | 31% |
| Specialty Additives | $36.0M | 9% |
| Intermediates And Solvents | $31.0M | 8% |
| Personal Care | $30.0M | 8% |
| Life Sciences | $27.0M | 7% |
| Intermediates | $19.0M | 5% |
GLW
Segment breakdown not available.
