vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of DATA I/O CORP (DAIO) and ELTEK LTD (ELTK), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
ELTEK LTD is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($12.5M vs $4.0M, roughly 3.1× DATA I/O CORP). ELTEK LTD runs the higher net margin — -69.0% vs 2.9%, a 72.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, ELTEK LTD posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (19.7% vs -23.2%).
Data I/O Corporation is a provider of manual and automated data programming and security provisioning systems for flash memory, microcontrollers, and logic devices. Founded in 1969 and incorporated in 1972, the company developed equipment that allowed electronic designers to program non-volatile semiconductor devices with data stored on punched cards or ASCII-encoded (eight-level) punched paper tape. These products were used for the design and manufacturing of systems used in industries such ...
Eltek is a brand of electric power conversion products for telecommunications and industrial applications, marketed as part of Delta Electronics. The products are developed and sold by Delta Electronics (Norway) AS, which is based in Drammen, Norway. As of 2018, Eltek had approximately 2000 employees, with offices in 40 countries.
DAIO vs ELTK — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q2 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $4.0M | $12.5M |
| Net Profit | $-2.8M | $365.0K |
| Gross Margin | 43.0% | 24.1% |
| Operating Margin | -62.8% | 11.6% |
| Net Margin | -69.0% | 2.9% |
| Revenue YoY | -23.2% | 19.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -132.7% | -51.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.29 | $0.05 |
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 | $4.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.9M | $12.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.1M | $10.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-2.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-742.0K | $365.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-382.0K | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-307.0K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-797.0K | $751.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-807.0K | — |
| Q4 25 | 43.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 50.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 49.8% | 24.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 51.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 52.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 53.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 54.5% | 15.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 52.8% | — |
| Q4 25 | -62.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -25.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -14.2% | 11.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -6.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -24.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -6.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -11.2% | 3.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -14.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | -69.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -25.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -12.5% | 2.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -6.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -22.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -5.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -15.7% | 7.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -13.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-0.29 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.15 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.08 | $0.05 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.04 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.13 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.03 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.09 | $0.11 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.09 | — |
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 | — | $1.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $13.5M | $44.6M |
| Total Assets | $20.2M | $64.4M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $8.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $13.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $16.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.2M | $44.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $17.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $19.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.9M | $38.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $19.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | $20.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $24.1M | $64.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $24.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $25.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $24.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $24.1M | $54.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $26.2M | — |
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 | $-1.7M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-1.9M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -46.6% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 5.2% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-2.8M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-1.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-343.0K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-342.0K | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $109.0K | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $839.0K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-243.0K | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-41.0K | — |
| Q4 25 | $-1.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-348.0K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-633.0K | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $53.0K | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $724.0K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-268.0K | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-180.0K | — |
| Q4 25 | -46.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -6.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -10.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -33.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -5.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -3.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 5.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.3% | — |
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.
