vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Autodesk (ADSK) and Palantir Technologies (PLTR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Autodesk is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.0B vs $1.4B, roughly 1.4× Palantir Technologies). Palantir Technologies runs the higher net margin — 16.1% vs 43.3%, a 27.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Palantir Technologies posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (70.0% vs 19.4%). Autodesk produced more free cash flow last quarter ($972.0M vs $764.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Palantir Technologies's revenue compounded faster (48.9% CAGR vs 17.5%).
Autodesk, Inc. is an American multinational software corporation that provides software products and services for the architecture, engineering, construction, manufacturing, media, education, and entertainment industries. Autodesk is headquartered in San Francisco, California, and has offices worldwide. Its U.S. offices are located in the states of California, Oregon, Colorado, Texas, Michigan, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
Palantir Technologies Inc. is an American publicly traded company that develops data integration and analytics platforms enabling government agencies, militaries, and corporations to combine and analyze data from multiple sources. Its flagship products—Gotham and Foundry —connect previously siloed databases to support intelligence operations, counterterrorism analysis, law enforcement, and enterprise analytics.
ADSK vs PLTR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.0B | $1.4B |
| Net Profit | $316.0M | $608.7M |
| Gross Margin | 91.5% | 84.6% |
| Operating Margin | 22.0% | 40.9% |
| Net Margin | 16.1% | 43.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 19.4% | 70.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 4.3% | 670.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.47 | $0.24 |
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 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.8B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6B | $883.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $827.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $725.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $678.1M |
| Q1 26 | $316.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $343.0M | $608.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $313.0M | $475.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $152.0M | $326.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $303.0M | $214.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $275.0M | $79.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $282.0M | $143.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $252.0M | $134.1M |
| Q1 26 | 91.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 91.1% | 84.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 91.0% | 82.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 90.2% | 80.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 90.6% | 80.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 90.6% | 78.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 90.7% | 79.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 90.3% | 81.0% |
| Q1 26 | 22.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 25.4% | 40.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 25.2% | 33.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.3% | 26.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.3% | 19.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.0% | 1.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.8% | 15.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.1% | 15.5% |
| Q1 26 | 16.1% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 18.5% | 43.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.8% | 40.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.3% | 32.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 18.5% | 24.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.5% | 9.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 18.7% | 19.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.8% | 19.8% |
| Q1 26 | $1.47 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.60 | $0.24 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.46 | $0.18 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.70 | $0.13 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.39 | $0.08 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.27 | $0.03 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.30 | $0.06 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.16 | $0.06 |
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 | $2.6B | $7.2B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.5B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.0B | $7.4B |
| Total Assets | $12.5B | $8.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.82× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | $2.6B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.3B | $7.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $6.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.0B | $6.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.9B | $5.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7B | $5.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.9B | $4.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0B | $4.0B |
| Q1 26 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.3B | — |
| Q1 26 | $3.0B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.9B | $7.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.7B | $6.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.6B | $5.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $5.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $5.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.2B | $4.1B |
| Q1 26 | $12.5B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $11.2B | $8.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.9B | $8.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.6B | $7.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.8B | $6.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.1B | $6.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.0B | $5.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.8B | $5.2B |
| Q1 26 | 0.82× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.86× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.92× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.88× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.88× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.88× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.93× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.06× | — |
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 | $989.0M | $777.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $972.0M | $764.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 49.7% | 54.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.9% | 0.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 3.13× | 1.28× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $2.4B | $2.1B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | $989.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $439.0M | $777.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $460.0M | $507.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $564.0M | $539.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $692.0M | $310.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $209.0M | $460.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $212.0M | $419.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $494.0M | $144.2M |
| Q1 26 | $972.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $430.0M | $764.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $451.0M | $500.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $556.0M | $531.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $678.0M | $304.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $199.0M | $457.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $203.0M | $415.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $487.0M | $141.3M |
| Q1 26 | 49.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 23.2% | 54.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 25.6% | 42.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 34.0% | 53.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 41.4% | 34.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.7% | 55.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.5% | 57.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 34.4% | 20.8% |
| Q1 26 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.5% | 0.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.5% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.5% | 0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.9% | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.6% | 0.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.6% | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.5% | 0.4% |
| Q1 26 | 3.13× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.28× | 1.28× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.47× | 1.07× | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.71× | 1.65× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.28× | 1.45× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.76× | 5.83× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.75× | 2.92× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.96× | 1.08× |
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.
