vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Corteva (CTVA) and Eastman Chemical Company (EMN), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Corteva is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.9B vs $2.0B, roughly 2.0× Eastman Chemical Company). Eastman Chemical Company runs the higher net margin — -14.1% vs 5.3%, a 19.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Corteva posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-1.7% vs -13.8%). Over the past eight quarters, Corteva's revenue compounded faster (-6.7% CAGR vs -8.6%).
Corteva, Inc. is an American company devoted to products for seeds and crop protection, including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and biologicals that are sold in 110 countries. The company's name combines "cor" with "teva". It is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. Corteva sells a large portion of their seeds under the Pioneer Hi-Bred International brand.
Eastman Chemical Company is an American chemical products manufacturer based in Kingsport, Tennessee. Founded in 1920, it was formerly a subsidiary of Kodak until 1994. The company is an independent global specialty materials company that produces a broad range of advanced materials, chemicals and fibers for everyday purposes. It operates 36 manufacturing sites worldwide and employs approximately 14,000 people. In 2023, Eastman had sales revenue of approximately $9.21 billion.
CTVA vs EMN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.9B | $2.0B |
| Net Profit | $-552.0M | $105.0M |
| Gross Margin | 42.4% | 17.1% |
| Operating Margin | -13.6% | — |
| Net Margin | -14.1% | 5.3% |
| Revenue YoY | -1.7% | -13.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1246.3% | -42.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.80 | $0.93 |
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 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.9B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.5B | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.4B | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.0B | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.3B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.1B | $2.4B |
| Q1 26 | — | $105.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $-552.0M | $105.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-320.0M | $47.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $140.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $652.0M | $182.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-41.0M | $330.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-524.0M | $180.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $230.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | 17.1% | ||
| Q4 25 | 42.4% | 17.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 37.2% | 19.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 54.6% | 22.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 47.0% | 24.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 37.3% | 24.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 32.7% | 24.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 52.3% | 25.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -13.6% | 0.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | -14.1% | 6.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 27.9% | 7.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 17.7% | 11.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.2% | 13.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -27.2% | 11.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.9% | 12.1% |
| Q1 26 | — | 5.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | -14.1% | 5.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | -12.2% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.4% | 6.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.8% | 7.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -1.0% | 14.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -22.5% | 7.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.2% | 9.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.93 | ||
| Q4 25 | $-0.80 | $0.93 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.47 | $0.40 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.92 | $1.20 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.95 | $1.57 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.05 | $2.81 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.76 | $1.53 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.51 | $1.94 |
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 | $4.5B | $566.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $1.7B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $24.1B | $6.0B |
| Total Assets | $42.8B | $14.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.07× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $566.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $4.5B | $566.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.2B | $837.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.5B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $6.0B | ||
| Q4 25 | $24.1B | $6.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $25.2B | $5.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $25.9B | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $24.3B | $5.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $23.8B | $5.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $24.7B | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $25.2B | $5.6B |
| Q1 26 | — | $14.9B | ||
| Q4 25 | $42.8B | $14.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $42.2B | $15.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $41.8B | $15.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $42.1B | $15.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $40.8B | $15.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $41.9B | $15.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $41.5B | $14.9B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.07× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.07× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.07× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.07× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.08× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.08× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.10× | — |
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 | $4.4B | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $4.2B | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 106.2% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 5.7% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $2.8B | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $4.4B | $502.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $193.0M | $402.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $947.0M | $233.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-2.1B | $-167.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.2B | $540.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $130.0M | $396.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $451.0M | $367.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $4.2B | $390.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $36.0M | $265.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $829.0M | $83.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-2.2B | $-314.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.0B | $361.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-24.0M | $276.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $337.0M | $252.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 106.2% | 19.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.4% | 12.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.8% | 3.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -49.9% | -13.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 100.4% | 16.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.0% | 11.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.5% | 10.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 5.7% | 5.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.0% | 6.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.8% | 6.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.1% | 6.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.6% | 8.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.6% | 4.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 4.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 4.78× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 8.55× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.72× | 1.66× | ||
| Q1 25 | -3.23× | -0.92× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.64× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.20× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.43× | 1.60× |
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
CTVA
| Corn | $1.4B | 35% |
| Herbicides | $1.1B | 27% |
| Insecticides | $488.0M | 12% |
| Fungicides | $272.0M | 7% |
| Biologicals | $191.0M | 5% |
| Soybean | $164.0M | 4% |
| Other | $160.0M | 4% |
| Otheroilseeds | $94.0M | 2% |
EMN
Segment breakdown not available.
