PLAB — what changed in the latest 10-Q
A section-by-section comparison of PLAB's newest periodic SEC filing (10-K/10-Q) against the prior same-form filing: paragraphs added and removed per section, with verbatim excerpts. Purely a deterministic text diff — no similarity scores, no directional read, not investment advice.
Comparing 10-Q · 2026-06-11 vs the prior 10-Q · 2026-03-11
| Section | Outcome | Added | Removed | Minor | Unchanged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD&A | Text added/removed | +26 | −20 | ~8 | 24 |
| Market risk (Item 3) | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~2 | 3 |
| Controls & procedures | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~1 | 2 |
| Legal proceedings | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~1 | 0 |
| Risk factors | No material changes reported (points to the 10-K) | — | — | — | — |
| Other information | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~1 | 1 |
Counts are paragraphs; added/removed means text added or removed vs the prior filing — no direction or judgement implied.
Representative excerpts
Up to 5 excerpts of about 300 characters per section, quoted verbatim from the two SEC filings.
MD&A
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-06-11
Revenue in Q2 FY26 was $209.9 million, a decrease of 6.7% compared with Q1 FY26, primarily driven by lower demand in our IC business. Compared with Q2 FY25, revenue decreased 0.5%, primarily due to lower revenue in the Asia IC market partially offset by growth in our FPD business.
IC revenue decreased $17.9 million or 10.8% in Q2 FY26 compared with Q1 FY26, and decreased $8.4 million or 5.4% compared with Q2 FY25, primarily due to delayed design releases. For the first six months of FY26, IC revenue increased $3.0 million or 1.0% compared with the first six months of FY25, pr…
FPD revenue increased $2.7 million or 4.4% in Q2 FY26 compared with Q1 FY26, and increased $7.3 million or 13.3% compared with Q2 FY25 primarily due to strong demand for high-end products in the Asia IT display market. For the first six months of FY26 FPD revenue increased $8.9 million or 7.9% compa…
Gross margin was 31.3% in Q2 FY26 compared with 35.0% in Q1 FY26, the decrease was primarily due to an unfavorable product mix.
Gross margin decreased to 31.3% in Q2 FY26 from 36.9% in Q2 FY25, primarily due to higher labor and benefits costs, material costs and manufacturing costs.
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-03-11
At these geometries and various high-end nodes, we can produce full lines of photomasks, and there is no significant technology employed by our competitors that is not available to us. We expect advanced-generation designs to continue to move to production throughout fiscal 2026, and we believe we a…
Revenue in Q1 FY26 of $225.1 million represented an increase of 4.3% compared with Q4 FY25 and an increase of 6.1% from Q1 FY25 primarily due to year-over-year growth in more advanced geometries and overall semiconductor industry growth.
IC revenue increased $7.9 million or 5.0% in Q1 FY26 from Q4 FY25 primarily due to an increase in high-end of $5.5 million or 8.3% as a result of the accelerated demand in Asia before Chinese New Year. Comparing Q1 FY26 to Q1 FY25, IC revenue increased $11.4 million or 7.4% mainly due to higher dema…
FPD revenue increased $1.4 million or 2.5% in Q1 FY26 from Q4 FY25 and $1.6 million or 2.7% from Q1 FY25 as a result of strong demand in mainstream from the China IT display market.
Gross margin remained unchanged in Q1 FY26 compared with Q4 FY25, as a favorable product mix was offset by higher labor and benefits costs.
How to read Risk Factors (Item 1A) in a 10-Q
A 10-Q risk-factor section usually takes one of three forms; this page classifies it as one of:
- Pointer — the filer states there have been no material changes and points back to the annual 10-K risk factors; there is no own risk text to compare this quarter.
- Partial update — the filer carves out specific updated risks ("except as set forth below"); the excerpts show exactly what is new this quarter.
- Restated in full — the quarter carries the complete risk-factor text. When the prior quarter was only a pointer there is no prior full text to diff against, so the page flags the section as restated instead.
This describes the filing structure only — it is never a judgement on whether risk went up or down.
Source: text-level diff of the two SEC EDGAR filings · deterministic (no AI-generated content) · for reference only · not investment advice