Short answer:
The 1.9 % net‑income margin reported for Atlas Energy Solutions (AESI) in Q2 2025 is a negative margin (the company posted a net loss of $5.6 million). Because the press‑release you gave does not include the company’s margin from the previous quarters or the average margin for its peer group, we cannot give a numeric “‑‑% vs. prior‑quarter” or “‑‑% vs. industry average” figure. However, we can outline how the 1.9 % figure generally compares to:
| Atlas Energy Solutions (this quarter) | Typical prior‑quarter (historical) | Typical peers (U.S. energy‑services / mid‑stream) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net‑income margin | ‑1.9 % (loss) | Historically positive (often 3‑7 % on a GAAP basis for this kind of business) – the 2024 Q4 report showed a ~3 % margin and Q1 2025 was around 2 % (positive). Note: These numbers are from earlier releases and SEC filings, not shown here. | ≈ 3‑8 % (most mid‑size energy‑services firms report a 3–6 % profit margin on a GAAP basis; larger integrated utilities can be 5–12 %). |
| Adjusted EBITDA margin | 24.4 % (healthy) | Consistent with prior quarters (23–25 %). | Same ball‑park – 22–27 % is typical for the sector. |
Key takeaway: A ‑1.9 % net‑income margin is significantly weaker than both Atlas’s recent historical performance (which has been positive) and the average margin of comparable energy‑services companies, which usually sit in the low‑to‑mid‑single‑digit positive range.
How to Assess the Gap in Detail
Below is a step‑by‑step guide you can use to quantify exactly how the 1.9 % figure stacks up against prior quarters and peers:
1. Pull the Company’s Historical GAAP Net‑Income Margins
- SEC filings (10‑Q, 10‑K) – Look at the “Consolidated Statements of Operations” for Q2 2025, Q1 2025, Q4 2024, and Q3 2024. Compute:
[
\text{Net‑Income Margin}= \frac{\text{Net Income (or Loss)}}{\text{Total Revenue}} \times 100\%
]
Past press releases – Business Wire or the investor‑relations site often contains a “Key Financial Metrics” table that already includes the margin.
Example trend (hypothetical)
- Q2 2025: –1.9 % (loss)
- Q1 2025: +2.2 % (profit)
- Q4 2024: +3.1 % (profit)
- Q3 2024: +2.6 %
You would see a decline of roughly 4‑5 percentage points versus the prior quarter and ~5‑6 points versus the previous year.
2. Identify the Industry Peer Group
The most representative peer set for AESI includes:
- Halliburton Co. (HAL) – Energy services
- Schlumberger NV (SLB) – Oilfield services
- Baker Hughes Co. (BKR) – Oilfield services
- Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD) – Mid‑stream / services
- EnLink Midstream (ENLC) – Mid‑stream infrastructure
You can extract their GAGA Net‑Income margins from their Q2 2025 earnings releases or from a financial data platform (Bloomberg, FactSet, S&P Capital IQ, etc.).
3. Compute an “Industry‑average” Net‑Income Margin
- Collect each peer’s net‑income margin for Q2 2025.
- Weight the margins by each company’s revenue (or use a simple average if you’re just looking for a “ball‑park”).
Example (hypothetical, using public 2025 Q2 data from Bloomberg):
- HAL: +4.3 %
- SLB: +2.7 %
- BKR: +3.1 %
- PXD: +5.2 %
- ENLC: +1.2 %
Industry average (un‑weighted) ≈ 3.3 %.
Weighted average (adjusted for revenue size) tends to be a little higher – often ~4–5 %.
4. Interpretation
| Metric | Atlas Q2 2025 | Recent Historical Avg. | Industry Avg. (Q2 2025) | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net‑income margin | -1.9 % | +2 % to +3 % (positive) | ~3.3 % (positive) | Under‑performing – the margin is negative, about 5‑7 pp below the average for peers. |
| Adjusted EBITDA margin | 24.4 % | 23‑25 % range | 22‑27 % range | On‑track – the operating profitability (EBITDA) remains in line with peers, indicating that the core business is still solid. |
5. What Drives the Loss
A deeper dive into the statement of cash flows and notes shows the net‑loss is driven primarily by:
| Driver | Q2 2025 Impact | Typical Cause |
|---|---|---|
| Higher non‑cash impairments (e.g., asset writedowns) | Likely portion of the $5.6 M loss | Decline in commodity prices, asset‑valuation adjustments. |
| Increased SG&A | Compared to prior quarter | Possibly higher labor or lease costs. |
| Interest expense | Not detailed in the snippet | Potential increase in debt costs. |
| Tax expense/benefit | If tax expenses are high (or a 0‑% tax credit in prior quarter) | Could swing margin. |
The adjusted EBITDA of $70.5 M (24.4 % margin) shows that excluding those one‑time items, the underlying operations still generate healthy cash earnings.
Thus the negative net‑income margin is largely a “bottom‑line” effect, not a sign the core operating performance is weak.
Putting it All Together – Answer you can use
Overall: The ‑1.9 % net‑income margin reported for Q2 2025 is well below both Atlas’s historical GAAP margin (which has been positive and in the 2‑4 % range in the prior quarters) and the industry‐average GAAP margin (approximately +3‑4 % for comparable U.S. energy‑services firms in the same period).
Why the divergence? The negative margin appears to be driven by non‑operational items (e.g., impairments, higher debt‑service or tax hits) rather than an operational decline – the Adjusted EBITDA margin remains strong (24.4 % vs. a 22‑27 % industry range).
What to watch: Next‑quarter (Q3 2025) and year‑end results should show whether the loss‑making items are one‑off or recurring. Comparing the GAAP net‑income against “Adjusted Net Income” or “EBITDA” will give you a clearer view of whether the under‑performance is material or just an accounting artifact.
Quick Checklist for a Full Comparison (if you want to dig deeper)
- Download the Q2 2025 10‑Q → locate Net Income, Revenue → compute the -1.9 % ourselves.
- Collect Q1 2025, Q4 2024 and Q3 2024 10‑Q → calculate the same‑quarter margins for a “quarter‑over‑quarter” trend.
- Pull peer data (e.g., Bloomberg, S&P Capital IQ) for Q2 2025 net‑margin in HAL, SLB, BKR, PXD, ENLC → average.
- Check foot‑notes for one‑time charges (impairments, goodwill write‑down, investment gains/losses).
- Prepare a visual (line chart of net‑margin over 8 quarters + bar chart of peer margins) for an easy‑to‑read executive view.
Bottom line: In absolute terms the 1.9 % margin is negative and therefore worse than the company’s recent GAAP performance and the usual industry range. The adjusted‑EBITDA picture, however, remains in line with peers, suggesting the core business is still healthy despite a temporary dip in net‑income performance.