vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Cognizant (CTSH) and EPAM Systems (EPAM), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Cognizant is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($5.3B vs $1.4B, roughly 3.8× EPAM Systems). Cognizant runs the higher net margin — 12.2% vs 7.8%, a 4.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, EPAM Systems posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (12.8% vs 4.9%). Cognizant produced more free cash flow last quarter ($781.0M vs $268.1M). Over the past eight quarters, EPAM Systems's revenue compounded faster (9.9% CAGR vs 5.8%).
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company originally founded in India. It is headquartered in Teaneck, New Jersey, United States. Cognizant is part of the NASDAQ-100 and trades under CTSH. It was founded in Chennai, India, as an in-house technology unit of Dun & Bradstreet in 1994, and started serving external clients in 1996.
EPAM Systems, Inc. is an American company that specializes in software engineering services, digital platform engineering, and digital product design, operating out of Newtown, Pennsylvania. EPAM is a founding member of the MACH Alliance.
CTSH vs EPAM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $5.3B | $1.4B |
| Net Profit | $648.0M | $109.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | 30.1% |
| Operating Margin | 16.0% | 10.6% |
| Net Margin | 12.2% | 7.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 4.9% | 12.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | 18.7% | 5.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.35 | $1.97 |
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 | $5.3B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.4B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.1B | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.0B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.8B | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.8B | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $648.0M | $109.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $274.0M | $106.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $645.0M | $88.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $663.0M | $73.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $546.0M | $103.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $582.0M | $136.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $566.0M | $98.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $546.0M | $116.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | 30.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 29.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 28.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 26.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 30.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 34.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 29.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 28.4% |
| Q4 25 | 16.0% | 10.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.0% | 10.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.6% | 9.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.7% | 7.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.8% | 10.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.6% | 15.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.6% | 10.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 14.6% | 9.5% |
| Q4 25 | 12.2% | 7.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.1% | 7.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.3% | 6.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.0% | 5.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.7% | 8.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.5% | 11.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.7% | 8.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.5% | 10.0% |
| Q4 25 | $1.35 | $1.97 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.56 | $1.91 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.31 | $1.56 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.34 | $1.28 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.10 | $1.80 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.17 | $2.37 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.14 | $1.70 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.10 | $1.97 |
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 | $1.9B | $1.3B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $15.0B | $3.7B |
| Total Assets | $20.7B | $4.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.4B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.0B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.2B | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.2B | $2.0B |
| Q4 25 | $15.0B | $3.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $14.9B | $3.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $15.3B | $3.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.9B | $3.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $14.4B | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $14.5B | $3.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $13.9B | $3.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $13.5B | $3.5B |
| Q4 25 | $20.7B | $4.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $20.1B | $4.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.2B | $4.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $20.0B | $4.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $20.0B | $4.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $20.2B | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.6B | $4.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.4B | $4.4B |
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 | $858.0M | $282.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $781.0M | $268.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 14.6% | 19.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.4% | 1.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.32× | 2.59× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $2.6B | $612.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $858.0M | $282.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $294.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $398.0M | $53.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $400.0M | $24.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $920.0M | $130.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $847.0M | $242.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $262.0M | $57.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $95.0M | $129.9M |
| Q4 25 | $781.0M | $268.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $286.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $331.0M | $43.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $323.0M | $14.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $837.0M | $114.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $791.0M | $237.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $183.0M | $52.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $16.0M | $123.2M |
| Q4 25 | 14.6% | 19.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 21.4% | 20.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.3% | 3.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.3% | 1.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.5% | 9.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.7% | 20.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.8% | 4.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.3% | 10.6% |
| Q4 25 | 1.4% | 1.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.2% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | 0.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.5% | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.6% | 1.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.1% | 0.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.6% | 0.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.7% | 0.6% |
| Q4 25 | 1.32× | 2.59× | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.48× | 2.76× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.62× | 0.60× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.60× | 0.33× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.68× | 1.26× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.46× | 1.77× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.46× | 0.58× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.17× | 1.12× |
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
CTSH
| Health Sciences | $1.4B | 25% |
| Financial Services | $1.1B | 21% |
| Consulting And Technology Services | $944.0M | 18% |
| Productsand Resources | $921.0M | 17% |
| Outsourcing Services | $677.0M | 13% |
| Transaction Or Volume Based | $308.0M | 6% |
EPAM
Segment breakdown not available.
