vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Brookfield Infrastructure Corp (BIPC) and Teradyne (TER). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Teradyne is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.3B vs $866.0M, roughly 1.5× Brookfield Infrastructure Corp). Teradyne runs the higher net margin — 31.1% vs -35.7%, a 66.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Teradyne posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (86.9% vs -4.6%).
Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P. is a publicly traded limited partnership with corporate headquarters in Toronto, Canada, that engages in the acquisition and management of infrastructure assets on a global basis.
Teradyne, Inc. is an American automatic test equipment (ATE) designer and manufacturer based in North Reading, Massachusetts. Its high-profile customers include Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel, Analog Devices, Texas Instruments and IBM.
BIPC vs TER — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $866.0M | $1.3B |
| Net Profit | $-309.0M | $398.9M |
| Gross Margin | 65.0% | 60.9% |
| Operating Margin | 62.7% | 36.9% |
| Net Margin | -35.7% | 31.1% |
| Revenue YoY | -4.6% | 86.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -148.1% | 55.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $2.53 |
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 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $769.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $866.0M | $651.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $685.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $752.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $737.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $908.0M | $729.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | $398.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $257.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $119.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-309.0M | $78.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $98.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $146.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $145.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $643.0M | $186.3M |
| Q1 26 | — | 60.9% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 57.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 58.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 65.0% | 57.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 60.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 59.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 59.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 63.8% | 58.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | 36.9% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 27.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 18.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 62.7% | 13.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 17.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 20.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 20.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 61.9% | 28.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | 31.1% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 23.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 15.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -35.7% | 12.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 14.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 19.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 19.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 70.8% | 25.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | $2.53 | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.62 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.75 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.49 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.61 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.89 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.89 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.14 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.2B | $241.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $0 |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.2B | — |
| Total Assets | $23.9B | $4.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $241.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $293.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $272.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $339.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $475.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $553.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $510.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $466.0M | $421.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | $0 | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.2B | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.5B | $2.7B |
| Q1 26 | — | $4.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.9B | $3.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $23.7B | $3.6B |
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 | $478.0M | $265.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 0.66× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $265.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $281.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $49.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $478.0M | $182.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $161.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $282.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $166.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $511.0M | $216.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $218.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $131.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $97.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $225.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $114.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $171.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 20.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 20.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 14.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 29.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 15.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 23.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 5.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 6.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 7.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 9.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 7.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 7.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 6.1% |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.66× | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 1.09× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.41× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.32× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.63× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.93× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.14× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.79× | 1.16× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
