vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Borr Drilling Ltd (BORR) and HUTCHMED (China) Ltd (HCM). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
HUTCHMED (China) Ltd is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($270.8M vs $267.7M, roughly 1.0× Borr Drilling Ltd). Borr Drilling Ltd runs the higher net margin — 13.1% vs 0.7%, a 12.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Borr Drilling Ltd posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-1.5% vs -16.5%).
Borr Drilling Ltd is a global offshore drilling contractor owning and operating a modern fleet of high-spec jack-up rigs. It offers drilling services to oil and gas exploration and production firms, with main operations across the North Sea, Southeast Asia, Middle East, and West Africa for shallow-water and marginal field projects.
HUTCHMED (China) LtdHCMEarnings & Financial Report
HUTCHMED (China) Ltd is a biopharmaceutical firm focused on discovering, developing and commercializing targeted and immunotherapies for oncology and immunological diseases. It operates across China and global markets, with multiple marketed oncology drugs and a robust pipeline of late-stage clinical candidates addressing unmet patient needs.
BORR vs HCM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $267.7M | $270.8M |
| Net Profit | $35.1M | $2.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | 37.7% |
| Operating Margin | 36.0% | -13.2% |
| Net Margin | 13.1% | 0.7% |
| Revenue YoY | -1.5% | -16.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | 10.7% | -83.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.14 | $0.00 |
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.
| Q4 25 | — | $270.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $267.7M | $277.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $324.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $271.9M | $305.7M | ||
| Q2 23 | $187.5M | $532.9M | ||
| Q2 22 | $105.3M | $202.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $35.1M | $455.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $11.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $31.7M | $25.8M | ||
| Q2 23 | $800.0K | $168.6M | ||
| Q2 22 | $-165.3M | $-162.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | 37.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 48.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 41.1% | ||
| Q2 23 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 22 | — | 0.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | -13.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 36.0% | -1.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -5.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 38.4% | -9.0% | ||
| Q2 23 | 31.9% | 21.0% | ||
| Q2 22 | -116.8% | -97.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.1% | 163.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.7% | 8.4% | ||
| Q2 23 | 0.4% | 31.6% | ||
| Q2 22 | -157.0% | -80.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.00 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.14 | $0.52 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.01 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.12 | $0.03 | ||
| Q2 23 | $0.00 | $0.19 | ||
| Q2 22 | $-1.09 | $-0.19 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $92.4M | $1.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $93.2M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.0B | $1.2B |
| Total Assets | $3.4B | $1.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.08× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $92.4M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $836.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $195.3M | $802.5M | ||
| Q2 23 | $83.8M | $856.2M | ||
| Q2 22 | $29.7M | $826.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $93.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $93.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $82.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $82.1M | ||
| Q2 23 | — | $40.1M | ||
| Q2 22 | $281.8M | $418.0K |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $759.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $999.2M | $740.1M | ||
| Q2 23 | $906.2M | $782.0M | ||
| Q2 22 | $711.5M | $799.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.4B | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.2B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 23 | $3.0B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 22 | $3.0B | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.08× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.08× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.11× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.11× | ||
| Q2 23 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q2 22 | 0.40× | 0.00× |
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 | $6.3M | $8.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $3.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 1.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 1.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.18× | 4.21× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-96.2M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $8.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.3M | $-72.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $40.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $16.0M | $-39.8M | ||
| Q2 23 | $2.4M | $226.4M | ||
| Q2 22 | $-8.5M | $-89.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-82.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $32.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-49.9M | ||
| Q2 23 | — | $202.0M | ||
| Q2 22 | — | $-105.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -29.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 10.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -16.3% | ||
| Q2 23 | — | 37.9% | ||
| Q2 22 | — | -52.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 23 | — | 4.6% | ||
| Q2 22 | — | 7.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.21× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.18× | -0.16× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.38× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.50× | -1.54× | ||
| Q2 23 | 3.00× | 1.34× | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BORR
| Transferred Over Time | $256.6M | 96% |
| Transferred At Point In Time | $11.1M | 4% |
HCM
Segment breakdown not available.
