vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of A. O. Smith (AOS) and Jacobs Solutions (J), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Jacobs Solutions is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.3B vs $912.5M, roughly 3.6× A. O. Smith). A. O. Smith runs the higher net margin — 13.7% vs 3.8%, a 9.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Jacobs Solutions posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (12.3% vs 0.0%). Jacobs Solutions produced more free cash flow last quarter ($364.9M vs $165.5M). Over the past eight quarters, A. O. Smith's revenue compounded faster (-3.4% CAGR vs -12.2%).
A. O. SmithAOSEarnings & Financial Report
A. O. Smith Corporation is an American manufacturer of both residential and commercial water heaters and boilers, and the largest manufacturer and marketer of water heaters in North America. It also supplies water treatment and purification products in the Asian market. The company has 27 locations worldwide, including five manufacturing facilities in North America, as well as plants in Bengaluru in India, Nanjing in China and Veldhoven in The Netherlands.
Jacobs Solutions Inc. is an American international technical professional services firm based in Dallas. The company provides engineering, technical, professional, and construction services as well as scientific and specialty consulting for a broad range of clients globally, including companies, organizations, and government agencies. Jacobs has consistently ranked No.
AOS vs J — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $912.5M | $3.3B |
| Net Profit | $125.4M | $125.5M |
| Gross Margin | 38.4% | 23.2% |
| Operating Margin | 17.9% | 7.1% |
| Net Margin | 13.7% | 3.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 0.0% | 12.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | 14.3% | 792.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.89 | $1.12 |
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.
| Q4 25 | $912.5M | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $942.5M | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $3.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $963.9M | $2.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $912.4M | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $902.6M | $-1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $4.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $978.8M | $4.3B |
| Q4 25 | $125.4M | $125.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $132.0M | $122.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $152.2M | $179.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $136.6M | $5.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $109.7M | $-18.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $120.1M | $325.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $156.2M | $146.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $147.6M | $162.1M |
| Q4 25 | 38.4% | 23.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 38.7% | 24.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.3% | 25.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 38.9% | 25.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 37.1% | 24.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 37.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 38.7% | 21.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 39.3% | 21.2% |
| Q4 25 | 17.9% | 7.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.6% | 6.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.4% | 7.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.1% | 7.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.1% | 7.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.9% | 6.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 22.0% | 6.6% |
| Q4 25 | 13.7% | 3.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.0% | 3.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.0% | 5.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.2% | 0.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.0% | -0.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.3% | -28.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.2% | 3.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 15.1% | 3.8% |
| Q4 25 | $0.89 | $1.12 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.94 | $0.88 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.07 | $1.55 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.95 | $0.06 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.75 | $-0.11 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.82 | $2.50 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.06 | $1.17 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.00 | $1.28 |
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 | $193.2M | $1.6B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $155.0M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.9B | $3.4B |
| Total Assets | $3.1B | $11.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.08× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $193.2M | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $172.8M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $177.9M | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $200.2M | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $276.1M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $255.6M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $233.3M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $303.1M | $1.0B |
| Q4 25 | $155.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $193.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $3.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.8B | $3.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $3.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.9B | $3.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.9B | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.9B | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.9B | $6.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.9B | $6.6B |
| Q4 25 | $3.1B | $11.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | $11.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2B | $11.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.3B | $11.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.2B | $11.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.2B | $11.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.2B | $15.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.2B | $14.9B |
| Q4 25 | 0.08× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.10× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $183.1M | $380.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $165.5M | $364.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 18.1% | 11.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.9% | 0.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.46× | 3.03× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $546.0M | $875.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $183.1M | $380.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $255.4M | $383.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $139.6M | $292.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $38.7M | $-96.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $221.9M | $107.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $195.9M | $196.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $57.4M | $482.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $106.6M | $-42.8M |
| Q4 25 | $165.5M | $364.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $240.6M | $353.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $122.5M | $270.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.4M | $-113.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $191.3M | $97.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $163.4M | $158.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $34.5M | $444.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $84.6M | $-70.6M |
| Q4 25 | 18.1% | 11.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 25.5% | 11.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.1% | 8.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.8% | -3.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 21.0% | 3.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 18.1% | -13.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.4% | 10.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.6% | -1.7% |
| Q4 25 | 1.9% | 0.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.6% | 0.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.7% | 0.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | 0.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.4% | 0.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.6% | -3.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.2% | 0.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.2% | 0.7% |
| Q4 25 | 1.46× | 3.03× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.93× | 3.13× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.92× | 1.63× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.28× | -17.18× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.02× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.63× | 0.60× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.37× | 3.28× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.72× | -0.26× |
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
AOS
| North America Segment | $713.7M | 78% |
| Rest Of World | $158.3M | 17% |
| Other | $40.5M | 4% |
J
| Infrastructure Advanced Facilities | $2.9B | 89% |
| PA Consulting | $354.4M | 11% |
