vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Applied Materials (AMAT) and MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC. (MRSH). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Applied Materials is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($6.8B vs $6.6B, roughly 1.0× MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC.). Applied Materials runs the higher net margin — 27.9% vs 12.4%, a 15.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.7% vs -3.5%). MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($2.1B vs $2.0B). Over the past eight quarters, MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC.'s revenue compounded faster (0.9% CAGR vs 0.7%).
Applied Materials, Inc. is an American corporation that supplies equipment, services and software for the manufacture of semiconductor chips for electronics, flat panel displays for computers, smartphones, televisions, and solar products. The company also supplies equipment to produce coatings for flexible electronics, packaging and other applications. The company is headquartered in Santa Clara, California, and is the second largest supplier of semiconductor equipment in the world based on r...
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., doing business as Marsh McLennan and Marsh, is a global professional services firm, headquartered in New York City with businesses in insurance brokerage, risk management, reinsurance services, talent management, investment advisory, and management consulting. Its four main operating companies are Marsh, which offers risk management, insurance broking, insurance program management, risk consulting, analytical modeling and alternative risk financing services; ...
AMAT vs MRSH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $6.8B | $6.6B |
| Net Profit | $1.9B | $821.0M |
| Gross Margin | 48.0% | — |
| Operating Margin | 25.2% | 18.5% |
| Net Margin | 27.9% | 12.4% |
| Revenue YoY | -3.5% | 8.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 9.6% | 4.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.36 | $1.68 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $6.8B | $6.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.3B | $6.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.1B | $7.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.2B | $7.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.0B | $6.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.8B | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.6B | $6.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.7B | $6.5B |
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $821.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.8B | $747.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7B | $788.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $747.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.0B | $1.4B |
| Q4 25 | 48.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 48.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 49.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 48.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 47.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 47.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 47.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 47.8% | — |
| Q4 25 | 25.2% | 18.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 30.6% | 18.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 30.5% | 26.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 30.4% | 28.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 29.0% | 18.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 28.7% | 19.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 28.8% | 26.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.3% | 29.7% |
| Q4 25 | 27.9% | 12.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.4% | 11.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 30.1% | 17.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.5% | 19.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.6% | 13.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 25.2% | 13.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 25.9% | 18.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 30.1% | 21.6% |
| Q4 25 | $2.36 | $1.68 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.22 | $1.51 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.63 | $2.45 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.45 | $2.79 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.09 | $1.58 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.05 | $1.51 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.06 | $2.27 | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.41 | $2.82 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $8.6B | $2.7B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $19.6B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $20.4B | $15.3B |
| Total Assets | $36.3B | $58.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 1.28× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $8.6B | $2.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.0B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.7B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.2B | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.5B | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.1B | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.6B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.5B | $1.5B |
| Q4 25 | — | $19.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $19.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $19.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $19.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $19.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $12.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $12.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $13.4B |
| Q4 25 | $20.4B | $15.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $19.5B | $15.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $19.0B | $16.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $18.6B | $14.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.0B | $13.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.8B | $13.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.2B | $13.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.4B | $12.6B |
| Q4 25 | $36.3B | $58.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $34.2B | $58.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $33.6B | $58.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $33.3B | $57.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $34.4B | $56.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $33.6B | $49.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $31.9B | $48.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $31.5B | $47.6B |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.28× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.27× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.23× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.37× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.47× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.93× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.94× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.06× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $2.8B | $2.2B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $2.0B | $2.1B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 30.0% | 31.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 11.5% | 1.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.49× | 2.63× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $5.7B | $5.0B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $2.8B | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $925.0M | $-622.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.4B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.3B | $-781.0M |
| Q4 25 | $2.0B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $544.0M | $-677.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | $1.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | $-868.0M |
| Q4 25 | 30.0% | 31.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 28.1% | 31.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.9% | 23.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.6% | -9.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 30.8% | 31.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 30.8% | 32.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.1% | 18.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 31.3% | -13.4% |
| Q4 25 | 11.5% | 1.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.0% | 1.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.2% | 0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.3% | 0.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.8% | 1.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.4% | 1.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.9% | 1.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.4% | 1.3% |
| Q4 25 | 1.49× | 2.63× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.48× | 2.79× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.74× | 1.38× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.78× | -0.45× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.49× | 2.48× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.40× | 2.56× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.81× | 1.08× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.15× | -0.56× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AMAT
| Semiconductor Systems Segment | $4.8B | 70% |
| Applied Global Services Segment | $1.6B | 24% |
| Other | $415.0M | 6% |
MRSH
| Marsh Insurance Group | $3.6B | 55% |
| Consulting Segment | $2.6B | 40% |
| Guy Carpenter Reinsurance Group | $179.0M | 3% |
| Other | $175.0M | 3% |
