vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Azenta, Inc. (AZTA) and BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. (BIO), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($693.2M vs $148.6M, roughly 4.7× Azenta, Inc.). BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. runs the higher net margin — -10.4% vs 103.9%, a 114.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (3.9% vs 0.8%). BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($119.1M vs $14.7M). Over the past eight quarters, BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC.'s revenue compounded faster (6.5% CAGR vs 4.4%).
Azenta, was founded in 1978, and is based in Chelmsford, Massachusetts, United States. The company is a provider of life sciences services including genomics, cryogenic storage, automation, and informatics.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. is an American developer and manufacturer of specialized technological products for the life science research and clinical diagnostics markets. The company was founded in 1952 in Berkeley, California, by husband and wife team David and Alice Schwartz, both graduates of the University of California, Berkeley. Bio-Rad is based in Hercules, California, and has operations worldwide.
AZTA vs BIO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $148.6M | $693.2M |
| Net Profit | $-15.4M | $720.0M |
| Gross Margin | 42.9% | 49.8% |
| Operating Margin | -4.9% | -17.2% |
| Net Margin | -10.4% | 103.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 0.8% | 3.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -15.7% | 200.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.34 | $26.59 |
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 | $148.6M | $693.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $159.2M | $653.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $143.9M | $651.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $143.3M | $585.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $147.4M | $667.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $150.6M | $649.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $144.3M | $638.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $136.4M | $610.8M |
| Q4 25 | $-15.4M | $720.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $50.9M | $-341.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-48.0M | $317.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-47.7M | $64.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-11.0M | $-715.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-6.6M | $653.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-6.6M | $-2.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-137.4M | $383.9M |
| Q4 25 | 42.9% | 49.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 45.4% | 52.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 46.2% | 53.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 43.8% | 52.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 46.7% | 51.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 45.5% | 54.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 44.8% | 55.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 43.8% | 53.4% |
| Q4 25 | -4.9% | -17.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.2% | 10.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1.3% | 11.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -12.7% | 4.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | -5.9% | 8.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -3.1% | 9.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -4.9% | 15.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -18.1% | 7.3% |
| Q4 25 | -10.4% | 103.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 32.0% | -52.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -33.4% | 48.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -33.3% | 10.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -7.5% | -107.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -4.4% | 100.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -4.5% | -339.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -100.8% | 62.9% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.34 | $26.59 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.12 | $-12.70 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.05 | $11.67 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.04 | $2.29 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.25 | $-25.89 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.25 | $23.34 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.12 | $-76.26 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.48 | $13.45 |
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 | $336.6M | $1.5B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.7B | $7.5B |
| Total Assets | $2.1B | $10.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.16× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $336.6M | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $279.8M | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $270.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $253.6M | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $377.5M | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $280.0M | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $336.5M | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $353.5M | $1.6B |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.7B | $7.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.7B | $6.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | $7.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.7B | $6.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7B | $6.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | $7.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0B | $6.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.2B | $9.1B |
| Q4 25 | $2.1B | $10.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.1B | $9.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.0B | $10.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | $9.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.0B | $9.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | $10.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.3B | $9.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.6B | $12.6B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.16× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.18× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.18× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $20.8M | $164.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $14.7M | $119.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 9.9% | 17.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 4.2% | 6.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 0.23× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $30.9M | $374.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $20.8M | $164.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2M | $120.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $25.8M | $116.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.4M | $129.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $29.8M | $124.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $17.7M | $163.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.8M | $97.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.7M | $69.8M |
| Q4 25 | $14.7M | $119.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.7M | $89.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $15.0M | $70.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.0M | $95.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $22.0M | $81.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.3M | $123.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3M | $55.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $428.0K | $29.6M |
| Q4 25 | 9.9% | 17.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -3.6% | 13.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.4% | 10.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.9% | 16.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 15.0% | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.5% | 19.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.9% | 8.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.3% | 4.8% |
| Q4 25 | 4.2% | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.9% | 4.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.5% | 7.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.2% | 5.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.3% | 6.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.2% | 6.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.9% | 6.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.1% | 6.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.23× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.04× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.37× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.03× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.25× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.18× |
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
AZTA
| Multiomics | $67.2M | 45% |
| Core Products | $47.6M | 32% |
| Sample Repository Solutions | $33.8M | 23% |
BIO
| Clinical Diagnostics | $425.3M | 61% |
| Life Science | $267.9M | 39% |
