vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. (GFS) and ON Semiconductor (ON), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.7B vs $1.6B, roughly 1.1× ON Semiconductor). ON Semiconductor runs the higher net margin — 14.8% vs 16.4%, a 1.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-2.9% vs -10.0%). Over the past eight quarters, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (-4.3% CAGR vs -12.3%).
GlobalFoundries Inc. is a multinational semiconductor contract manufacturing and design company domiciled in the Cayman Islands and headquartered in Malta, New York. Created by the divestiture of the manufacturing arm of AMD in March 2009, the company was privately owned by Mubadala Investment Company, a sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, until an initial public offering (IPO) in October 2021. Mubadala remains the majority owner of the company with an 82% stake.
Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. was an American semiconductor company based in San Jose, California. It was founded in 1957 as a division of Fairchild Camera and Instrument by the "traitorous eight" who defected from Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory. It became a pioneer in the manufacturing of transistors and of integrated circuits. Schlumberger bought the firm in 1979 and sold it to National Semiconductor in 1987; Fairchild was spun off as an independent company again in 1997. I...
GFS vs ON — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.7B | $1.6B |
| Net Profit | $249.0M | $255.0M |
| Gross Margin | 24.8% | 37.9% |
| Operating Margin | 11.6% | 17.0% |
| Net Margin | 14.8% | 16.4% |
| Revenue YoY | -2.9% | -10.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 39.9% | -32.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.44 | $0.63 |
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 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.7B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | $1.9B |
| Q4 25 | — | $255.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $249.0M | $170.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $228.0M | $-486.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $211.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $379.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $178.0M | $401.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $155.0M | $338.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $134.0M | $453.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 37.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.8% | 37.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 24.2% | 20.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 45.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 23.8% | 45.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 24.2% | 45.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 25.4% | 45.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | 17.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.6% | 13.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.6% | -39.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 23.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.6% | 25.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.5% | 22.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.5% | 28.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | 16.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.8% | 11.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.5% | -33.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 22.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.2% | 22.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.5% | 19.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.7% | 24.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.63 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.44 | $0.41 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.41 | $-1.15 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.38 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.88 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.32 | $0.93 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.28 | $0.78 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.24 | $1.04 |
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 | $2.0B | $2.9B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $3.4B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $11.8B | $7.9B |
| Total Assets | $16.7B | $13.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.43× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $3.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.3B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.2B | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.2B | $2.6B |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.4B |
| Q4 25 | — | $7.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.8B | $7.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.5B | $8.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.1B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $8.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.6B | $8.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.3B | $8.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.3B | $8.1B |
| Q4 25 | — | $13.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $16.7B | $13.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $16.8B | $13.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $16.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $14.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.1B | $13.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $13.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $13.5B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.43× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.43× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.42× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.38× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.39× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.41× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.42× |
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 | $595.0M | $418.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $372.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 24.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 3.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 2.39× | 1.64× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $1.4B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $418.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $595.0M | $184.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $431.0M | $602.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $331.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $579.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $375.0M | $465.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $402.0M | $362.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $488.0M | $498.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $372.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $106.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $454.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $434.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $293.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $207.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $276.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | 24.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 7.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 31.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 25.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 16.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 12.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 14.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 5.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 10.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 8.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 9.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 8.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 11.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.64× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.39× | 1.08× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.89× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.57× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.53× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.11× | 1.16× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.59× | 1.07× | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.64× | 1.10× |
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
GFS
| Smart Mobile Devices | $752.0M | 45% |
| Automotive | $306.0M | 18% |
| Home And Industrial Io T | $258.0M | 15% |
| Goods Or Services Transferred Over Time | $198.0M | 12% |
| Communications Infrastructure Datacenter | $175.0M | 10% |
ON
| Industrial Segment | $426.3M | 27% |
| Other End Markets Segment | $337.3M | 22% |
| Intelligent Sensing Segments | $284.0M | 18% |
| Direct Customers | $282.4M | 18% |
| Intelligent Sensing Group | $230.0M | 15% |
