vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P. (BEP) and FLOWSERVE CORP (FLS). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.7B vs $1.1B, roughly 1.6× FLOWSERVE CORP). FLOWSERVE CORP runs the higher net margin — 7.6% vs 5.9%, a 1.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (14.2% vs -6.7%).
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P.BEPEarnings & Financial Report
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P. is a publicly traded limited partnership that owns and operates renewable power assets, with corporate headquarters in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is 60% owned by Brookfield Asset Management.
The Flowserve Corporation is an American multinational corporation and one of the largest suppliers of industrial and environmental machinery such as pumps, valves, end face mechanical seals, automation, and services to the power, oil, gas, chemical and other industries. Headquartered in Irving, Texas, which is in the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex, Flowserve employs close to 16,000 employees in more than 50 countries. Flowserve sells products and offers aftermarket services to engineering and c...
BEP vs FLS — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.7B | $1.1B |
| Net Profit | $100.0M | $81.7M |
| Gross Margin | — | 35.6% |
| Operating Margin | — | 11.2% |
| Net Margin | 5.9% | 7.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 14.2% | -6.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 213.6% | 10.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.22 | — |
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 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5B | $1.2B |
| Q1 26 | — | $81.7M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $-29.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $219.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $100.0M | $81.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $73.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $77.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $58.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-88.0M | $72.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | 35.6% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 34.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 32.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 34.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 32.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 31.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 31.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 31.6% |
| Q1 26 | — | 11.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 3.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 6.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 12.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 11.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 10.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 9.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 10.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | 7.6% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | -2.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 18.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.9% | 6.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 6.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 5.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | -5.9% | 6.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $-0.21 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.67 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.22 | $0.62 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.56 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.59 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.44 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.28 | $0.55 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.9B | $792.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $33.3B | $2.3B |
| Total Assets | $98.6B | $5.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $792.4M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $760.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $675.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $33.3B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.0B | $2.0B |
| Q1 26 | — | $5.7B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $5.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $5.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $98.6B | $5.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $5.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $5.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $5.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $73.8B | $5.2B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.72× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.75× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
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 | $379.0M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 3.79× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $-174.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $401.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $379.0M | $154.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-49.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $197.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $178.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $231.0M | $-12.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $-25.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $384.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $137.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-61.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $168.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $154.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-27.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | -2.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 32.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 11.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -5.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 14.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 13.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -2.4% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 2.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.83× | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.79× | 1.89× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -0.68× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.55× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.06× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -0.18× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
