vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Baker Hughes (BKR) and Texas Pacific Land Corporation (TPL), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Baker Hughes is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($7.4B vs $211.6M, roughly 34.9× Texas Pacific Land Corporation). Texas Pacific Land Corporation runs the higher net margin — 11.9% vs 58.3%, a 46.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Texas Pacific Land Corporation posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (13.9% vs 0.3%). Over the past eight quarters, Texas Pacific Land Corporation's revenue compounded faster (10.2% CAGR vs 7.3%).
Baker Hughes Company is an American global energy technology company co-headquartered in Houston, Texas and London, UK. As one of the world's largest oil field services, industrial and energy technology companies, it provides products and services to the oil and gas industry for exploration and production, as well as other energy and industrial applications. It operates in over 120 countries, with facilities in Australia, Brazil, Singapore, Malaysia, India, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Germany, ...
The Texas Pacific Land Corporation is a publicly traded real estate operating company with its administrative office in Dallas, Texas. Owning over 880,000 acres (3,600 km2) in 20 West Texas counties, TPL is among the largest private landowners in the state of Texas. It was previously organized as a publicly traded trust taxed as a corporation, and operated under the name Texas Pacific Land Trust.
BKR vs TPL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $7.4B | $211.6M |
| Net Profit | $876.0M | $123.3M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 7.1% | 70.5% |
| Net Margin | 11.9% | 58.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 0.3% | 13.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -25.7% | 4.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $-8.59 |
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 | $7.4B | $211.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.0B | $203.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.9B | $187.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.4B | $196.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.4B | $185.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.9B | $173.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.1B | $172.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.4B | $174.1M |
| Q4 25 | $876.0M | $123.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $609.0M | $121.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $701.0M | $116.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $402.0M | $120.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $118.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $766.0M | $106.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $579.0M | $114.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $455.0M | $114.4M |
| Q4 25 | 7.1% | 70.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.7% | 73.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.0% | 76.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.7% | 76.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.0% | 76.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.5% | 73.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.7% | 77.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.2% | 78.1% |
| Q4 25 | 11.9% | 58.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.7% | 59.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.1% | 61.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.3% | 61.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.0% | 63.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.1% | 61.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.1% | 66.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.1% | 65.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-8.59 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $5.27 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $5.05 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $5.24 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $5.14 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $4.63 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $4.98 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $4.97 |
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 | — | $144.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $5.4B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $18.8B | $1.5B |
| Total Assets | $40.9B | $1.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.29× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $144.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $531.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $543.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $460.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $369.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $533.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $894.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $837.1M |
| Q4 25 | $5.4B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.0B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.0B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.0B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.9B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.9B | — |
| Q4 25 | $18.8B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.7B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.0B | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $16.9B | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $16.2B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $15.6B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $15.4B | $1.1B |
| Q4 25 | $40.9B | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $39.2B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $38.7B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $38.1B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $38.4B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $37.5B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $36.7B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $37.1B | $1.3B |
| Q4 25 | 0.29× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.33× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.34× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.35× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.35× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.37× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.38× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.38× | — |
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 | $1.7B | $113.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $1.3B | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 17.4% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 5.1% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.90× | 0.92× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $2.5B | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.7B | $113.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $929.0M | $154.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $510.0M | $120.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $709.0M | $156.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $126.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $118.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $348.0M | $98.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $784.0M | $147.2M |
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $634.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $209.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $409.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $837.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $710.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $56.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $451.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | 17.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 5.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.90× | 0.92× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.53× | 1.28× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.73× | 1.04× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.76× | 1.30× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.01× | 1.07× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.32× | 1.11× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.60× | 0.86× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.72× | 1.29× |
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
BKR
| Services | $2.4B | 33% |
| Production Solutions | $973.0M | 13% |
| Completions Intervention And Measurements | $945.0M | 13% |
| Gas Technology Services | $881.0M | 12% |
| Well Construction | $879.0M | 12% |
| Industrial Technology | $851.0M | 12% |
| Climate Technology Solutions | $229.0M | 3% |
| Other | $185.0M | 3% |
TPL
| Water Serviceand Operations Segment | $98.2M | 46% |
| Water Sales And Royalties | $60.7M | 29% |
| Produced Water Royalties | $33.5M | 16% |
| Easementand Sundry | $20.6M | 10% |
