vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Broadridge Financial Solutions (BR) and GE Vernova (GEV), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
GE Vernova is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($9.3B vs $1.7B, roughly 5.4× Broadridge Financial Solutions). GE Vernova runs the higher net margin — 16.6% vs 50.9%, a 34.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, GE Vernova posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (16.3% vs -5.4%). Over the past eight quarters, Broadridge Financial Solutions's revenue compounded faster (10.4% CAGR vs 6.7%).
Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. is a public corporate services and financial technology company. Headquartered in Lake Success, New York, the company was founded in 2007 as a spin-off from Automatic Data Processing. Broadridge supplies companies in the financial industry with financial documents such as proxy statements and annual reports, as well as shareholder communications solutions such as virtual annual meetings.
GE Vernova, Inc. is an energy equipment manufacturing and services company headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The company operates through three main segments: Power, which designs, manufactures, and services gas, nuclear, hydro, and steam technologies; Wind, which provides onshore and offshore wind turbines and blades; and Electrification, which offers grid solutions, power conversion, solar and storage solutions, and digital technologies for the transmission, distribution, and manag...
BR vs GEV — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.7B | $9.3B |
| Net Profit | $284.6M | $4.8B |
| Gross Margin | 27.6% | — |
| Operating Margin | 12.0% | — |
| Net Margin | 16.6% | 50.9% |
| Revenue YoY | -5.4% | 16.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | 17.1% | 5.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.42 | $17.44 |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $9.3B | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.7B | $11.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $10.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | $9.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $8.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $10.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.4B | $8.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.9B | $8.2B |
| Q1 26 | — | $4.8B | ||
| Q4 25 | $284.6M | $3.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $452.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $374.2M | $514.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $243.1M | $254.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $142.4M | $484.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $79.8M | $-96.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $323.2M | $1.3B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 27.6% | 21.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 19.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 37.3% | 20.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 31.8% | 18.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 27.9% | 20.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 24.5% | 12.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 35.5% | 20.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | 5.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 24.1% | 4.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.0% | 0.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.3% | 5.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.4% | -4.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 22.7% | 6.4% |
| Q1 26 | — | 50.9% | ||
| Q4 25 | 16.6% | 33.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 4.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.1% | 5.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.4% | 3.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.0% | 4.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.6% | -1.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.6% | 15.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | $17.44 | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.42 | $13.28 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.64 | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.17 | $1.86 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.05 | $0.91 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.20 | $1.75 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.68 | $-0.35 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.72 | $4.65 |
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 | $371.5M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $3.2B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.9B | — |
| Total Assets | $8.6B | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.10× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $371.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $562.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $317.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $290.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $293.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $305.2M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.4B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.6B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.4B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.9B | $11.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $8.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7B | $8.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.4B | $8.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | $9.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.2B | $9.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.2B | $9.1B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $8.6B | $63.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $54.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.5B | $53.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.3B | $51.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.2B | $51.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.0B | $50.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.2B | $48.1B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.10× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.22× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.44× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.64× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.63× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.55× | — |
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 | — | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $4.8B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 51.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $7.5B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $980.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $699.7M | $367.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $360.4M | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $236.7M | $921.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-125.5M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $721.0M | $979.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | $4.8B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $733.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $684.1M | $194.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $348.9M | $975.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $227.9M | $571.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-133.4M | $968.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $703.2M | $822.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | 51.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 16.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 7.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.1% | 2.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.3% | 12.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.3% | 5.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -9.4% | 10.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 36.2% | 10.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 6.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.8% | 1.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.6% | 2.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.6% | 3.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.6% | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.9% | 1.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.68× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.17× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.87× | 0.71× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.48× | 4.57× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.66× | 1.90× | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.57× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.23× | 0.76× |
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
BR
| Recurring Fee Revenue Investor Communication Solutions | $589.5M | 34% |
| Recurring Fee Revenue Capital Markets | $300.9M | 18% |
| Recurring Fee Revenue Regulatory | $248.7M | 15% |
| Recurring Fee Revenue Customer Communications | $189.2M | 11% |
| Recurring Fee Revenue Wealth And Investment Management | $179.7M | 10% |
| Recurring Fee Revenue Data Driven Fund Solutions | $112.7M | 7% |
| Event Driven Revenue Mutual Funds | $51.4M | 3% |
| Event Driven Revenue Equity And Other | $39.2M | 2% |
| Global Technology And Operations | $7.5M | 0% |
GEV
| Organic revenues | $8.6B | 92% |
| Other | $752.0M | 8% |
