vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of A. O. Smith (AOS) and Tronox Holdings plc (TROX). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
A. O. Smith is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($945.6M vs $730.0M, roughly 1.3× Tronox Holdings plc). A. O. Smith runs the higher net margin — 12.5% vs -24.1%, a 36.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Tronox Holdings plc posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.0% vs -2.0%). A. O. Smith produced more free cash flow last quarter ($118.9M vs $53.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Tronox Holdings plc's revenue compounded faster (-2.9% CAGR vs -3.9%).
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.
Tronox Limited is an American worldwide chemical company involved in the titanium products industry with approximately 6,500 employees. Following its acquisition of the mineral sands business formerly belonging to South Africa's Exxaro Resources, Tronox is the largest fully integrated seller and marketer of titanium dioxide (TiO2) pigment, which provides brightness to applications such as coatings, plastics and paper. Tronox mines titanium-bearing mineral sands and operates upgrading faciliti...
AOS vs TROX — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $945.6M | $730.0M |
| Net Profit | $118.0M | $-176.0M |
| Gross Margin | 38.7% | 5.3% |
| Operating Margin | — | -15.6% |
| Net Margin | 12.5% | -24.1% |
| Revenue YoY | -2.0% | 8.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -14.0% | -486.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.85 | $-1.11 |
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.
| Q1 26 | $945.6M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $912.5M | $730.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $942.5M | $699.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $731.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $963.9M | $738.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $912.4M | $676.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $902.6M | $804.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $820.0M |
| Q1 26 | $118.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $125.4M | $-176.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $132.0M | $-99.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $152.2M | $-84.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $136.6M | $-111.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $109.7M | $-30.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $120.1M | $-25.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $156.2M | $16.0M |
| Q1 26 | 38.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 38.4% | 5.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 38.7% | 7.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.3% | 10.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 38.9% | 13.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 37.1% | 17.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 37.4% | 15.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 38.7% | 18.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 17.9% | -15.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.6% | -6.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.4% | -4.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.1% | -8.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.1% | 7.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.5% | 6.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.9% | 9.3% |
| Q1 26 | 12.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 13.7% | -24.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.0% | -14.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.0% | -11.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.2% | -15.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.0% | -4.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.3% | -3.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.2% | 2.0% |
| Q1 26 | $0.85 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.89 | $-1.11 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.94 | $-0.63 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.07 | $-0.53 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.95 | $-0.70 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.75 | $-0.19 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.82 | $-0.16 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.06 | $0.10 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $185.2M | $199.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $574.2M | $3.1B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.9B | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $3.7B | $6.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.31× | 2.21× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $185.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $193.2M | $199.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $172.8M | $185.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $177.9M | $132.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $200.2M | $138.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $276.1M | $151.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $255.6M | $167.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $233.3M | $201.0M |
| Q1 26 | $574.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $155.0M | $3.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $193.2M | $2.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.8B |
| Q1 26 | $1.9B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.8B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.9B | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.9B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.9B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.9B | $1.9B |
| Q1 26 | $3.7B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.1B | $6.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | $6.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2B | $6.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.3B | $6.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.2B | $6.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.2B | $6.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.2B | $6.1B |
| Q1 26 | 0.31× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.08× | 2.21× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.01× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.67× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.64× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.10× | 1.57× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.45× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.47× |
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 | — | $121.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $118.9M | $53.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 12.6% | 7.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 1.1% | 9.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $647.5M | $-281.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $183.1M | $121.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $255.4M | $-57.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $139.6M | $28.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $38.7M | $-32.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $221.9M | $82.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $195.9M | $87.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $57.4M | $160.0M |
| Q1 26 | $118.9M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $165.5M | $53.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $240.6M | $-137.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $122.5M | $-55.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.4M | $-142.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $191.3M | $-35.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $163.4M | $-14.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $34.5M | $84.0M |
| Q1 26 | 12.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 18.1% | 7.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 25.5% | -19.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.1% | -7.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.8% | -19.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 21.0% | -5.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 18.1% | -1.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.4% | 10.2% |
| Q1 26 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.9% | 9.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.6% | 11.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.7% | 11.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | 14.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.4% | 17.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.6% | 12.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.2% | 9.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.46× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.93× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.92× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.28× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.02× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.63× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.37× | 10.00× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AOS
Segment breakdown not available.
TROX
| Ti O2 | $577.0M | 79% |
| Zircon | $78.0M | 11% |
| Idle Facility And Lower Of Cost Or Net Realizable Value Charges | $42.0M | 6% |
| Other | $20.0M | 3% |
| MGT | $13.0M | 2% |
