vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Pure Storage, Inc. (PSTG) and Sandisk Corp (SNDK), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Sandisk Corp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.0B vs $964.5M, roughly 3.1× Pure Storage, Inc.). Sandisk Corp runs the higher net margin — 5.7% vs 26.5%, a 20.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Sandisk Corp posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (78.5% vs 16.0%). Sandisk Corp produced more free cash flow last quarter ($980.0M vs $52.6M). Over the past eight quarters, Sandisk Corp's revenue compounded faster (27.0% CAGR vs 10.5%).
Pure Storage, Inc. is an American publicly traded technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, United States. It develops all-flash data storage hardware and software products. Pure Storage was founded in 2009 and developed its products in stealth mode until 2011. Afterwards, the company grew in revenues by about 50% per quarter and raised more than $470 million in venture capital funding, before going public in 2015. Initially, Pure Storage developed the software for storage ...
Sandisk Corporation is an American multinational computer technology company based in Milpitas, California, that designs and manufactures flash memory products, including memory cards, USB flash drives, and solid-state drives. It was founded in 1988 as SunDisk by Eli Harari, Sanjay Mehrotra, and Jack Yuan. The name is a portmanteau of the founder’s name Sanjay and disk.
PSTG vs SNDK — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2026 vs Q3 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $964.5M | $3.0B |
| Net Profit | $54.8M | $803.0M |
| Gross Margin | 72.3% | 50.9% |
| Operating Margin | 5.6% | 35.2% |
| Net Margin | 5.7% | 26.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 16.0% | 78.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | -13.9% | 141.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.16 | $5.15 |
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 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q4 25 | $964.5M | $2.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $861.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $778.5M | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $879.8M | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $831.1M | $1.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $763.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $693.5M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $803.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $54.8M | $112.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $47.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-14.0M | $-23.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $42.4M | $-1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $63.6M | $104.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $35.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-35.0M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | 50.9% | ||
| Q4 25 | 72.3% | 29.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 70.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 68.9% | 26.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 67.5% | 22.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 70.1% | 32.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 70.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 71.5% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | 35.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | 5.6% | 7.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -4.0% | 0.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.8% | -111.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.2% | 10.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -6.0% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | 26.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | 5.7% | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -1.8% | -1.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.8% | -114.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.7% | 5.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -5.0% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $5.15 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.16 | $0.75 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.14 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.04 | $-0.17 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.13 | $-13.33 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.19 | $0.72 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.10 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.11 | — |
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 | $852.8M | $1.5B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $603.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.4B | $10.2B |
| Total Assets | $4.2B | $13.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.06× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 25 | $852.8M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $887.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $739.3M | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $723.6M | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $894.6M | $804.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $965.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $900.6M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $603.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $10.2B | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $9.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $9.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $9.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $12.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $13.0B | ||
| Q4 25 | $4.2B | $12.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.0B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.8B | $13.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.0B | $13.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.9B | $14.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.8B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.6B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.06× | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.14× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.20× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.21× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 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 | $116.0M | $1.0B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $52.6M | $980.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 5.5% | 32.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 6.6% | 1.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 2.12× | 1.27× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $566.7M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $116.0M | $488.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $212.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $283.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $208.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $97.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $226.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $221.5M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $52.6M | $438.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $150.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $211.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $152.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $35.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $166.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $172.7M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 5.5% | 19.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 27.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 17.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 21.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 24.9% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 6.6% | 2.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.0% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.12× | 4.36× | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.50× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.91× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.52× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.35× | — | ||
| Q2 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
PSTG
| US | $683.2M | 71% |
| Non Us | $281.3M | 29% |
SNDK
| Edge | $1.7B | 55% |
| Consumer | $907.0M | 30% |
| Datacenter | $440.0M | 15% |
