vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. (MTSI) and SkyWater Technology, Inc (SKYT), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($271.6M vs $171.0M, roughly 1.6× SkyWater Technology, Inc). MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 18.0% vs -4.5%, a 22.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, SkyWater Technology, Inc posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (126.6% vs 24.5%). MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($30.0M vs $-42.2M). Over the past eight quarters, SkyWater Technology, Inc's revenue compounded faster (46.6% CAGR vs 22.4%).
MACOM Technology Solutions, Inc. is an American developer and producer of radio, microwave, and millimeter wave semiconductor devices and components. The company is headquartered in Lowell, Massachusetts, and in 2005 was Lowell's largest private employer. MACOM is certified to the ISO 9001 international quality standard and ISO 14001 environmental standard. The company has design centers and sales offices in North America, Europe, Asia and Australia.
SkyWater Technology, Inc. is an American semiconductor engineering and fabrication foundry, based in Bloomington, Minnesota. It is the only US-owned pure-play silicon foundry.
MTSI vs SKYT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $271.6M | $171.0M |
| Net Profit | $48.8M | $-7.8M |
| Gross Margin | 55.9% | 14.9% |
| Operating Margin | 15.9% | 0.0% |
| Net Margin | 18.0% | -4.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 24.5% | 126.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | 129.1% | -1045.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.64 | $-0.15 |
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 | $271.6M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $261.2M | $171.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $252.1M | $150.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $235.9M | $59.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $218.1M | $61.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $75.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $200.7M | $93.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $190.5M | $93.3M |
| Q1 26 | $48.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $45.1M | $-7.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $36.5M | $144.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $31.7M | $-10.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-167.5M | $-7.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-679.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | $29.4M | $1.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.9M | $-1.9M |
| Q1 26 | 55.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 54.5% | 14.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 55.3% | 24.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 55.2% | 18.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 53.7% | 23.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 25.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 54.7% | 21.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 53.2% | 18.3% |
| Q1 26 | 15.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 15.2% | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.9% | 5.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.8% | -11.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.0% | -6.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.7% | 5.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.4% | 1.5% |
| Q1 26 | 18.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 17.3% | -4.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.5% | 95.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.4% | -16.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -76.8% | -12.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -0.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.7% | 1.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.5% | -2.0% |
| Q1 26 | $0.64 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.67 | $-0.15 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.48 | $2.95 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.42 | $-0.21 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-2.30 | $-0.15 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-0.01 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.40 | $0.03 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.27 | $-0.04 |
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 | $768.5M | $23.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $38.9M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.4B | $187.8M |
| Total Assets | $2.1B | $733.9M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.21× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | $768.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $786.0M | $23.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $735.2M | $30.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $681.5M | $49.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $656.5M | $51.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $18.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $581.9M | $20.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $521.5M | $18.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $38.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $40.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $42.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $38.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $39.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $41.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $42.4M |
| Q1 26 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $187.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $192.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $45.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $53.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $55.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $56.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $51.5M |
| Q1 26 | $2.1B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.1B | $733.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0B | $787.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | $334.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $326.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $311.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | $315.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $290.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.21× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.21× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.93× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.72× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.71× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.73× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.82× |
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 | $42.9M | $-36.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $30.0M | $-42.2M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 11.0% | -24.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 4.8% | 3.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.88× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $161.5M | $-53.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | $42.9M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $69.6M | $-36.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.4M | $-47.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $38.7M | $-1.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $66.7M | $56.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-1.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $62.3M | $14.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $49.0M | $9.3M |
| Q1 26 | $30.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $49.4M | $-42.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $51.6M | $-48.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $30.5M | $-4.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $61.3M | $41.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-2.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $57.1M | $9.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $41.5M | $8.5M |
| Q1 26 | 11.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 18.9% | -24.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.5% | -31.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.9% | -7.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 28.1% | 67.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -2.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 28.5% | 9.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.8% | 9.1% |
| Q1 26 | 4.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 7.7% | 3.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.5% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.5% | 4.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.4% | 24.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.6% | 5.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.9% | 0.9% |
| Q1 26 | 0.88× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.54× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.65× | -0.33× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.22× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.12× | 9.47× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.46× | — |
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
MTSI
| Industrial Defense | $117.7M | 43% |
| Data Center | $85.8M | 32% |
| Telecom | $68.1M | 25% |
SKYT
| Advanced Technology Services Time And Materials And Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts | $140.9M | 82% |
| Tool | $28.9M | 17% |
| Overbilling Of ATS Development Revenues | $2.0M | 1% |