vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AST SpaceMobile, Inc. (ASTS) and NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL CORP (NTIC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
AST SpaceMobile, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($54.3M vs $23.3M, roughly 2.3× NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL CORP). NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL CORP runs the higher net margin — -136.2% vs 1.0%, a 137.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, AST SpaceMobile, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (2758.2% vs 9.2%). NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL CORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-479.7K vs $-330.7M). Over the past eight quarters, AST SpaceMobile, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (942.2% CAGR vs 5.8%).
AST SpaceMobile, Inc. is a publicly traded satellite designer and manufacturer based in Midland, Texas, United States. The company is building the SpaceMobile satellite constellation, a space-based cellular broadband network designed to connect directly to standard, unmodified smartphones. The network is intended to deliver 4G and 5G broadband coverage globally, particularly in remote and underserved regions.
Maxar Technologies Inc., was an American space technology company, specializing in geospatial intelligence, Earth observation, and on-orbit satellite servicing, satellite products, and related services. DigitalGlobe and MDA Holdings Company merged to become Maxar Technologies on October 5, 2017.
ASTS vs NTIC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $54.3M | $23.3M |
| Net Profit | $-74.0M | $237.8K |
| Gross Margin | — | 36.0% |
| Operating Margin | -175.0% | 4.0% |
| Net Margin | -136.2% | 1.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 2758.2% | 9.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | -106.3% | -57.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.03 |
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 | $54.3M | $23.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $14.7M | $22.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2M | $21.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $718.0K | $19.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.9M | $21.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1M | $23.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $900.0K | $20.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $500.0K | $20.8M |
| Q4 25 | $-74.0M | $237.8K | ||
| Q3 25 | $-122.9M | $-1.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-99.4M | $121.8K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-45.7M | $434.3K | ||
| Q4 24 | $-35.9M | $561.1K | ||
| Q3 24 | $-171.9M | $1.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-72.5M | $976.6K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-19.7M | $1.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | 36.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 37.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 38.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 35.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 38.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 43.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 38.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 40.0% |
| Q4 25 | -175.0% | 4.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -1109.0% | 4.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -11692.1% | 4.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -8838.4% | -1.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -2733.6% | 5.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -27494.0% | 11.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -14568.8% | 7.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | -7902.0% | 10.6% |
| Q4 25 | -136.2% | 1.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -833.7% | -4.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -8598.1% | 0.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -6365.7% | 2.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -1887.2% | 2.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | -15631.5% | 7.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -8061.1% | 4.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -3946.0% | 8.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.03 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.11 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.01 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.04 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.06 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.19 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.10 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0.17 |
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 | $4.3B | $6.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.4B | $72.4M |
| Total Assets | $5.0B | $104.0M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $4.3B | $6.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.4B | $7.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | $6.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.7B | $5.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $5.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $946.7M | $5.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $544.5M | $5.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $408.9M | $4.8M |
| Q4 25 | $2.4B | $72.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | $72.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $72.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $766.7M | $69.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $669.1M | $70.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $502.8M | $71.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $241.9M | $68.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $285.8M | $68.4M |
| Q4 25 | $5.0B | $104.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | $102.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | $99.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | $93.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $954.6M | $94.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $821.6M | $94.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $579.6M | $89.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $501.7M | $87.3M |
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 | $65.0M | $341.9K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-330.7M | $-479.7K |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -609.0% | -2.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 728.7% | 3.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 1.44× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-1.1B | $-1.8M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $65.0M | $341.9K | ||
| Q3 25 | $-64.5M | $-1.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-43.5M | $609.7K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-28.5M | $803.7K | ||
| Q4 24 | $-28.4M | $2.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-33.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-16.2M | $1.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-48.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-330.7M | $-479.7K | ||
| Q3 25 | $-302.9M | $-1.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-353.6M | $-171.2K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-149.0M | $293.1K | ||
| Q4 24 | $-110.5M | $1.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-63.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-38.4M | $869.4K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-87.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | -609.0% | -2.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2055.0% | -6.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -30592.0% | -0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -20752.4% | 1.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | -5814.3% | 5.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | -5795.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -4261.6% | 4.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -17538.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 728.7% | 3.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1617.6% | 0.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 26831.0% | 3.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16776.6% | 2.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4317.5% | 5.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2756.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2466.9% | 5.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7913.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.44× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 5.01× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.85× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 4.27× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.99× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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
ASTS
| Products | $44.4M | 82% |
| Other | $7.8M | 14% |
| Sat Co | $2.1M | 4% |
NTIC
| Inside The USA To Unaffiliated Customers | $7.5M | 32% |
| Natur Tec | $6.0M | 26% |
| Acobal | $3.6M | 15% |
| Other | $2.7M | 12% |
| BR | $2.1M | 9% |
| Zerust OY | $1.4M | 6% |
