Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies (a) Legal Proceedings and Other Matters Ongoing Former CEO Related Matters On March 12, 2024, we terminated Ken Peterman, our President and CEO at the time, for Cause pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement dated September 12, 2022 (the “Employment Agreement”). On November 21, 2024 (as amended on December 31, 2024), Mr. Peterman filed a claim with the American Arbitration Association, alleging that Comtech materially breached the Employment Agreement in the termination for Cause and that the termination was a retaliation for whistleblowing by Mr. Peterman in connection with certain of our prior financial and accounting practices. Mr. Peterman claimed he was owed direct contractual damages in an amount in excess of $6,000,000 and consequential damages for injury to his professional reputation in excess of $35,000,000. We believed Mr. Peterman's claims to be entirely without merit and defended ourselves vigorously in the matter. We filed an initial counterclaim against Mr. Peterman alleging that his misconduct and attempts to conceal the same constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties. Subsequently, on November 24, 2025, we filed an amended counterclaim seeking damages for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, breach of contract and defamation, as well as further claims for Mr. Peterman's breach of his fiduciary duties in addition to the initial counterclaim. On January 9, 2026, Mr. Peterman's counsel wrote to the Arbitrator with two motions, (i) voluntarily withdrawing Mr. Peterman's claims against Comtech, and (ii) seeking dismissal of Comtech's counterclaims against Mr. Peterman. On or about January 23, 2026, the Arbitrator granted Mr. Peterman’s motion to withdraw all of his claims against Comtech in the arbitration, but rejected Mr. Peterman's motion for dismissal of Comtech's counterclaims. Comtech’s counterclaims are still pending against Mr. Peterman. On or about February 6, 2026, Mr. Peterman's counsel notified the Arbitrator that he was resigning from his representation of Mr. Peterman. Mr. Peterman has retained new counsel in connection with his defense of Comtech's counterclaims. Discovery continues as the parties prepare for a hearing on Comtech’s counterclaims. In parallel, in August 2026, Mr. Peterman filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court asserting his right to advancement of legal expenses in connection with his defense of Comtech’s counterclaims in the arbitration and his entitlement to reimbursement for fees and expenses associated with the Delaware action. We filed our answer in September 2026. Mr. Peterman also filed a separate administrative complaint with the Department of Labor (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) making similar allegations and claiming that we retaliated against him in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We independently investigated, with the assistance of an outside advisor, Mr. Peterman's allegations that he was a whistleblower and determined that such allegations were not substantiated. The U.S. Department of Labor dismissed Mr. Peterman’s administrative complaint on or about April 22, 2025. The appeal period has expired. Nevertheless, on July 18, 2025, Mr. Peterman filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), largely reciting the same claims he made in the prior Sarbanes-Oxley complaint with the Department of Labor. We promptly informed Mr. Peterman’s attorney that the suit was frivolous and sought leave of the Court to seek dismissal. Mr. Peterman’s attorney responded by withdrawing the lawsuit on September 5, 2025. Mr. Peterman also filed a separate administrative complaint with the Department of Labor (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) making similar allegations and claiming that we retaliated against him in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We independently investigated, with the assistance of an outside advisor, Mr. Peterman's allegations that he was a whistleblower and determined that such allegations were not substantiated. The U.S. Department of Labor dismissed Mr. Peterman’s administrative complaint on or about April 22, 2025. The appeal period has expired. Nevertheless, on July 18, 2025, Mr. Peterman filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), largely reciting the same claims he made in the prior Sarbanes-Oxley complaint with the Department of Labor. We promptly informed Mr. Peterman’s attorney that the suit was frivolous and sought leave of the Court to seek dismissal. Mr. Peterman’s attorney responded by withdrawing the lawsuit on September 5, 2025. Separately, on December 11, 2024, Mr. Peterman was indicted by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and arrested on charges of insider trading and securities fraud. He was also charged with similar allegations by the SEC in a civil lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of New York the same day. We are not named as a defendant in either proceeding. Resolved U.S. Export Matter In 2023, we initiated an export compliance review pertaining to certain variants of our modems and determined that we potentially violated U.S. export compliance laws. Based on such review, in fiscal 2024, we voluntarily disclosed to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) a potential misclassification of certain exports under an EAR classification and sought export licenses under the more restrictive ITAR classification for future exports. In September 2026, the DDTC closed the matter without taking further action or imposing a civil penalty. Other Matters In the ordinary course of business, we include indemnification provisions in certain of our customer contracts to indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse such customers for certain losses, including but not limited to losses related to third-party claims of intellectual property infringement arising from the customer’s use of our solutions. We may also, from time to time, receive indemnification requests from customers related to third-party claims that 9-1-1 calls were improperly routed during an emergency. We evaluate such claims as and when they arise. We do not always agree with customers that they are entitled to indemnification and in such cases reject their claims. Despite maintaining that we have properly carried out our duties, we may seek coverage under our various insurance policies; however, we cannot be sure that we will be able to maintain or obtain insurance coverage at acceptable costs or in sufficient amounts or that our insurer will not disclaim coverage as to such claims. Accordingly, pending or future claims asserted against us by a party that we are obligated to indemnify could result in legal costs and damages that could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition. There are also certain other pending and threatened legal actions which arise in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of these matters is difficult to accurately predict, we believe that the outcome of these other matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations. (b) Employment Change of Control and Indemnification Agreements We have entered into employment and/or change of control agreements, as well as indemnification agreements with certain of our executive officers and certain key employees. All of these agreements may require payments by us, in certain circumstances, including, but not limited to, a change in control of the Company or termination of the employee.

On March 12, 2024, we terminated Ken Peterman, our President and CEO at the time, for Cause pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement dated September 12, 2022 (the “Employment Agreement”). On November 21, 2024 (as amended on December 31, 2024), Mr. Peterman filed a claim with the American Arbitration Association, alleging that Comtech materially breached the Employment Agreement in the termination for Cause and that the termination was a retaliation for whistleblowing by Mr. Peterman in connection with certain of our prior financial and accounting practices. Mr. Peterman claimed he was owed direct contractual damages in an amount in excess of $6,000,000 and consequential damages for injury to his professional reputation in excess of $35,000,000. We believed Mr. Peterman's claims to be entirely without merit and defended ourselves vigorously in the matter. We filed an initial counterclaim against Mr. Peterman alleging that his misconduct and attempts to conceal the same constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties. Subsequently, on November 24, 2025, we filed an amended counterclaim seeking damages for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, breach of contract and defamation, as well as further claims for Mr. Peterman's breach of his fiduciary duties in addition to the initial counterclaim. On January 9, 2026, Mr. Peterman's counsel wrote to the Arbitrator with two motions, (i) voluntarily withdrawing Mr. Peterman's claims against Comtech, and (ii) seeking dismissal of Comtech's counterclaims against Mr. Peterman. On or about January 23, 2026, the Arbitrator granted Mr. Peterman’s motion to withdraw all of his claims against Comtech in the arbitration, but rejected Mr. Peterman's motion for dismissal of Comtech's counterclaims. Comtech’s counterclaims are still pending against Mr. Peterman. On or about February 6, 2026, Mr. Peterman's counsel notified the Arbitrator that he was resigning from his representation of Mr. Peterman. Mr. Peterman has retained new counsel in connection with his defense of Comtech's counterclaims. Discovery continues as the parties prepare for a hearing on Comtech’s counterclaims. In parallel, in August 2026, Mr. Peterman filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court asserting his right to advancement of legal expenses in connection with his defense of Comtech’s counterclaims in the arbitration and his entitlement to reimbursement for fees and expenses associated with the Delaware action. We filed our answer in September 2026.

Mr. Peterman also filed a separate administrative complaint with the Department of Labor (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) making similar allegations and claiming that we retaliated against him in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We independently investigated, with the assistance of an outside advisor, Mr. Peterman's allegations that he was a whistleblower and determined that such allegations were not substantiated. The U.S. Department of Labor dismissed Mr. Peterman’s administrative complaint on or about April 22, 2025. The appeal period has expired. Nevertheless, on July 18, 2025, Mr. Peterman filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), largely reciting the same claims he made in the prior Sarbanes-Oxley complaint with the Department of Labor. We promptly informed Mr. Peterman’s attorney that the suit was frivolous and sought leave of the Court to seek dismissal. Mr. Peterman’s attorney responded by withdrawing the lawsuit on September 5, 2025.

In 2023, we initiated an export compliance review pertaining to certain variants of our modems and determined that we potentially violated U.S. export compliance laws. Based on such review, in fiscal 2024, we voluntarily disclosed to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) a potential misclassification of certain exports under an EAR classification and sought export licenses under the more restrictive ITAR classification for future exports. In September 2026, the DDTC closed the matter without taking further action or imposing a civil penalty.

In the ordinary course of business, we include indemnification provisions in certain of our customer contracts to indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse such customers for certain losses, including but not limited to losses related to third-party claims of intellectual property infringement arising from the customer’s use of our solutions. We may also, from time to time, receive indemnification requests from customers related to third-party claims that 9-1-1 calls were improperly routed during an emergency. We evaluate such claims as and when they arise. We do not always agree with customers that they are entitled to indemnification and in such cases reject their claims. Despite maintaining that we have properly carried out our duties, we may seek coverage under our various insurance policies; however, we cannot be sure that we will be able to maintain or obtain insurance coverage at acceptable costs or in sufficient amounts or that our insurer will not disclaim coverage as to such claims. Accordingly, pending or future claims asserted against us by a party that we are obligated to indemnify could result in legal costs and damages that could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.