OCZ Technology's 2012 Fiscal Year Revenue Up 92%

By published

Over the past 12 months, we have continually seen OCZ Technology grow alongside the SSD market.

Over the past 12 months, we have seen many products released from OCZ Technology revolving around the SSD market. To list just a few of these products that have hit our benchmark tables; Vertex 4, Vertex 3, Octane, RevoDrive Hybrid, and RevoDrive 3 X2. In addition, we have seen OCZ Technology finalize its purchases of Indilinx & SANRAD Ltd. and making a switch from a LSI SandForce controller to a partnership with Marvell and its new Indilinx Everest controllers. All this has helped push OCZ to a net revenue increase of 92 percent. Those numbers are impressive in themselves but breaking it down a little further, OCZ saw a 154 percent increase in SSD revenue. This is a statement on OCZ's performance (despite all the 2011 issues with the SandForce controller) and how the market has embraced SSDs over the past 12 months.   

Financial Highlights:

  • Fiscal year 2012, net revenue increased 92% to $365.8 million compared with fiscal year 2011 net revenue of $190.1 million. Net revenue in Q4'12 was a record $110.4 million, and increased 71% compared with net revenue of $64.6 million reported in Q4'11.
  • Fiscal year 2012, SSD revenue was $338.9 million, up 154% compared with $133.2 million in fiscal year 2011. Q4'12 SSD revenue reached a record $103.2 million; an increase of 77% compared with Q4'11 SSD revenue of $58.2 million.
  • Fiscal year 2012 gross margins increased to 22.5% compared to 12.7% with fiscal year 2011. Q4'12 gross margin increased to 25.0% compared with 16.6% in Q4'11, and 22.5% in Q3'12.
  • Net loss for Q4'12 was $10.9 million or $0.19 loss per share compared with a net loss of $9.3 million or $0.27 loss per share in Q4'11.
  • Non-GAAP net loss for Q4'12 was $6.0 million or $0.11 loss per share as compared with a non-GAAP net loss for Q4'11 of $0.8 million or $0.02 loss per share.

We look forward to seeing what OCZ Technology has in store for end-users in the second half of 2012, along with all the other SSD manufacturers such as Crucial, OWC, Intel and Corsair.

Doug Crowthers
21 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Marfig
    There's some of us in all those millions. I only wished we didn't have to contribute with so much.
    Reply
  • JeanLuc
    Sales vanity, profit sanity.

    Did OCZ say why they are still making a loss as that's the real story here. You can turnover all you want but if your losing money eventually you will go out business.
    Reply
  • I don't believe it. I think these are fake numbers. OCZ SSD drives are the worst on the market. It's not just SSD drives. They have a history of making bad quality products: bad power supply, bad RAM, and now bad SSD drives.
    Reply
  • mitunchidamparam
    i contributed 200$, i feel proud
    Reply
  • fonzy
    Probably from not honouring there damn rebates.
    Reply
  • blazorthon
    jiojioie8I don't believe it. I think these are fake numbers. OCZ SSD drives are the worst on the market. It's not just SSD drives. They have a history of making bad quality products: bad power supply, bad RAM, and now bad SSD drives.
    OCZ RAM isn't bad. OCZ doesn't make power supplies (although some cheap @$$ units are re-branded as OCZ and sure, they suck and OCZ should be embarrassed to put their name on the garbage). OCZ SSDs are not crap either. In fact, their Vertex 4 drives are some of the best on the market, especially best priced among the high end drives. Their Sandforce drives had some reliability issues, but that is true for most Sandforce based drives. There were simply more OCZ drives than other branded drives, so they got the most publicity for it.

    For example on the RAM, I still have a dual channel OCZ Gold kit from seven years ago in one of my older PCs and it works just fine. The heat sinks also do a great job of getting the heat of of the ICs. Oh sure one example is not enough to prove that it wasn't crap, but I've heard more complaints about Kingston RAM than OCZ and that's a better example.
    Reply
  • akamrcrack
    9365614 said:
    OCZ RAM isn't bad. OCZ doesn't make power supplies (although some cheap @$$ units are re-branded as OCZ). OCZ SSDs are not crap either. In fact, their Vertex 4 drives are some of the best on the market, especially best priced among the high end drives. Their Sandforce drives had some reliability issues, but that is true for most Sandforce based drives. There were simply more OCZ drives than other branded drives, so they got the most publicity for it.

    You are right, the ram isn't "bad" they just managed to screw over the end user by selling these ram sticks and then causing motherboard manufacturers to force a higher stock voltage through the motherboard for all sticks of ram. I was unlucky enough to pick up a Gigabyte mobo with that exact problem because of some shitty designing and poor managing.

    Move on to their psus where the only 2 worth giving a 2nd thought about are the ZS/ZX models with the rest being less than lackluster with most causing issues/not meeting listed wattage.

    Move over to their SSD market, where you can drive to Microcenter and see a bin of OCZ Agility 3 60gb SSDs like they are flea market SSDs. Their only 2 SSDs I have seen anyone bother mentioning are the Vertex 3 (after several firmware updates) and the newer Vertex 4 which JUST hit the market. Compare them to Crucial M4's, Corsair Force GT's, Mushkin Enhanced Chronos' when these 3 are consecutively cheaper than the rest of the market and there is no market for OCZ ssds besides people that want to wait half a year for $10 rebate on a OCZ Agility 3 crapper just to get told they no longer accept the rebate (out of date)

    Probably one of my biggest tiffs with OCZ tech is that they have some of the worst customer support/rma service/rebate services.
    Reply
  • blazorthon
    9365620 said:
    You are right, the ram isn't "bad" they just managed to screw over the end user by selling these ram sticks and then causing motherboard manufacturers to force a higher stock voltage through the motherboard for all sticks of ram. I was unlucky enough to pick up a Gigabyte mobo with that exact problem because of some shitty designing and poor managing.

    Move on to their psus where the only 2 worth giving a 2nd thought about are the ZS/ZX models with the rest being less than lackluster with most causing issues/not meeting listed wattage.

    Move over to their SSD market, where you can drive to Microcenter and see a bin of OCZ Agility 3 60gb SSDs like they are flea market SSDs. Their only 2 SSDs I have seen anyone bother mentioning are the Vertex 3 (after several firmware updates) and the newer Vertex 4 which JUST hit the market. Compare them to Crucial M4's, Corsair Force GT's, Mushkin Enhanced Chronos' when these 3 are consecutively cheaper than the rest of the market and there is no market for OCZ ssds besides people that want to wait half a year for $10 rebate on a OCZ Agility 3 crapper just to get told they no longer accept the rebate (out of date)

    Probably one of my biggest tiffs with OCZ tech is that they have some of the worst customer support/rma service/rebate services.

    OCZ doesn't make the PSUs (which I acknowledge as mostly bad). I said that most of OCZ's Sandforce drives (IE their older ones) had problems, but that they remedied the problems with their newer drives such as the Vertex 4. I did not say anything about OCZ's support/rebate service. I have had the pleasure of not dealing with them much.

    I had no problem with the OCZ RAM and although I have heard of problems (the only two memory companies from whom I really never hear problems about for system RAM are Corsair and G.Skill), so long as you run the higher voltage, don't they work fine? Or does this cause damage to the north bridge or CPU? I just put them into my machine and they worked fine, so perhaps I was lucky.
    Reply
  • Haserath
    Revenue is a great number to throw around and all but...
    Net loss for Q4'12 was $10.9 million or $0.19 loss per share compared with a net loss of $9.3 million or $0.27 loss per share in Q4'11.
    There's the one I care about as an investor.
    Reply
  • blazorthon
    9365631 said:
    Revenue is a great number to throw around and all but...
    Net loss for Q4'12 was $10.9 million or $0.19 loss per share compared with a net loss of $9.3 million or $0.27 loss per share in Q4'11.
    There's the one I care about as an investor.

    Good point, but increased revanue could mean that if they don't need to spend as much this year, they will increase profits greatly this year. OCZ spent a lot of money on R&D for several different SSD markets (not to mention anything else) and if they don't need to do that again but can keep revenue up to par with this number this year or even pass it, then this could be a great year for them. Let's wait and see.
    Reply