vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Agilent Technologies (A) and Biogen (BIIB), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Biogen is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.3B vs $1.8B, roughly 1.3× Agilent Technologies). Agilent Technologies runs the higher net margin — 17.0% vs -2.1%, a 19.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Agilent Technologies posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.0% vs -7.1%). Biogen produced more free cash flow last quarter ($468.0M vs $175.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Agilent Technologies's revenue compounded faster (6.9% CAGR vs -0.2%).
Agilent Technologies, Inc. provides application focused solutions to the life sciences, diagnostics, and applied chemical markets worldwide. The Life Sciences and Applied Markets segment offers liquid chromatography systems and components; liquid chromatography mass spectrometry systems; gas chromatography systems and components; gas chromatography mass spectrometry systems; inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry instruments; atomic absorption instruments; microwave plasma-atomic emissi...
Biogen Inc. is an American multinational biotechnology company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States specializing in the treatment of neurological diseases. The company's primary products are dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), diroximel fumarate (Vumerity), interferon beta-1a (AVONEX), peginterferon beta-1a (Plegridy), and natalizumab (Tysabri), all for the treatment of multiple sclerosis ; nusinersen (Spinraza) for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy ; omaveloxolone (Skyclarys) for ...
A vs BIIB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.8B | $2.3B |
| Net Profit | $305.0M | $-48.9M |
| Gross Margin | 52.6% | 78.3% |
| Operating Margin | 19.6% | -2.5% |
| Net Margin | 17.0% | -2.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.0% | -7.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -4.1% | -118.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.07 | $-0.35 |
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 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $2.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.7B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | $2.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.7B | $2.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7B | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.6B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $2.5B |
| Q1 26 | $305.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $434.0M | $-48.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $336.0M | $466.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $215.0M | $634.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $318.0M | $240.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $351.0M | $266.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $282.0M | $388.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $308.0M | $583.6M |
| Q1 26 | 52.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 53.2% | 78.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 51.1% | 73.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 51.9% | 77.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 53.5% | 74.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 53.9% | 76.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 54.2% | 74.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 54.4% | 77.8% |
| Q1 26 | 19.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 23.8% | -2.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.7% | 22.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.0% | 28.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.4% | 12.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.0% | 11.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 21.1% | 18.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.1% | 28.3% |
| Q1 26 | 17.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 23.3% | -2.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.3% | 18.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.9% | 24.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 18.9% | 9.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 20.6% | 10.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 17.9% | 15.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.6% | 23.7% |
| Q1 26 | $1.07 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.53 | $-0.35 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.18 | $3.17 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.75 | $4.33 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.11 | $1.64 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.23 | $1.82 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.97 | $2.66 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.05 | $4.00 |
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 | $1.8B | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $3.0B | $6.3B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $6.9B | $18.3B |
| Total Assets | $12.8B | $29.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.44× | 0.34× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | — |
| Q1 26 | $3.0B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.0B | $6.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.4B | $6.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.3B | $6.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.3B | $4.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.3B | $6.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.1B | $6.3B |
| Q1 26 | $6.9B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $6.7B | $18.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.4B | $18.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.1B | $17.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.0B | $17.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.9B | $16.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.9B | $16.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.2B | $15.9B |
| Q1 26 | $12.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $12.7B | $29.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.2B | $29.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.2B | $28.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.9B | $28.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.8B | $28.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.0B | $28.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.9B | $26.8B |
| Q1 26 | 0.44× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.45× | 0.34× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.53× | 0.35× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.55× | 0.36× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.56× | 0.27× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.57× | 0.38× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.36× | 0.28× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.34× | 0.40× |
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 | $268.0M | $511.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $175.0M | $468.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 9.7% | 20.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 5.2% | 1.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.88× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $993.0M | $2.1B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | $268.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $545.0M | $511.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $362.0M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $221.0M | $160.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $431.0M | $259.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $481.0M | $760.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $452.0M | $935.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $333.0M | $625.8M |
| Q1 26 | $175.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $452.0M | $468.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $259.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $107.0M | $134.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $334.0M | $222.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $388.0M | $721.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $360.0M | $900.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $230.0M | $592.3M |
| Q1 26 | 9.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 24.3% | 20.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.9% | 48.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.4% | 5.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.9% | 9.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.8% | 29.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.8% | 36.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.6% | 24.0% |
| Q1 26 | 5.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 5.0% | 1.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.9% | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.8% | 1.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.8% | 1.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | 1.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.8% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.5% | 1.4% |
| Q1 26 | 0.88× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.26× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.08× | 2.73× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.03× | 0.25× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.36× | 1.08× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.37× | 2.85× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.60× | 2.41× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.08× | 1.07× |
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
A
| Service Other | $525.0M | 29% |
| Chemicaland Energy Market | $422.0M | 23% |
| Agilent Cross Lab | $273.0M | 15% |
| Environmentaland Forensics Market | $177.0M | 10% |
| Food Market | $166.0M | 9% |
| Academiaand Government Market | $130.0M | 7% |
| Applied Markets | $98.0M | 5% |
BIIB
| Products | $1.7B | 73% |
| Tysabri Product | $244.5M | 11% |
| AVONEX | $119.2M | 5% |
| SKYCLARYS | $88.9M | 4% |
| Alzheimers Collaboration | $47.1M | 2% |
| IMRALDI | $43.5M | 2% |
| TECFIDERA | $36.9M | 2% |
| PLEGRIDY | $24.7M | 1% |
| QALSODY | $7.8M | 0% |
| BYOOVIZ | $4.3M | 0% |
