vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) and Jacobs Solutions (J). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Jacobs Solutions is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.3B vs $2.0B, roughly 1.7× Eastman Chemical Company). Eastman Chemical Company runs the higher net margin — 5.3% vs 3.8%, a 1.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Jacobs Solutions posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (12.3% vs -13.8%). Over the past eight quarters, Eastman Chemical Company's revenue compounded faster (-8.6% CAGR vs -12.2%).
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.
Jacobs Solutions Inc. is an American international technical professional services firm based in Dallas. The company provides engineering, technical, professional, and construction services as well as scientific and specialty consulting for a broad range of clients globally, including companies, organizations, and government agencies. Jacobs has consistently ranked No.
EMN vs J — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.0B | $3.3B |
| Net Profit | $105.0M | $125.5M |
| Gross Margin | 17.1% | 23.2% |
| Operating Margin | — | 7.1% |
| Net Margin | 5.3% | 3.8% |
| Revenue YoY | -13.8% | 12.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | -42.3% | 792.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.93 | $1.12 |
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.
| Q1 26 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.0B | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.3B | $3.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.3B | $2.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $-1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4B | $4.2B |
| Q1 26 | $105.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $105.0M | $125.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $47.0M | $122.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $140.0M | $179.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $182.0M | $5.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $330.0M | $-18.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $180.0M | $325.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $230.0M | $146.9M |
| Q1 26 | 17.1% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 17.1% | 23.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.7% | 24.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 22.1% | 25.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 24.8% | 25.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.7% | 24.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 24.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 25.3% | 21.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.6% | 7.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.1% | 6.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.4% | 7.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.0% | 7.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.2% | 7.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.1% | 6.2% |
| Q1 26 | 5.3% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 5.3% | 3.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.1% | 3.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.1% | 5.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.9% | 0.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.7% | -0.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.3% | -28.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.7% | 3.5% |
| Q1 26 | $0.93 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.93 | $1.12 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.40 | $0.88 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.20 | $1.55 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.57 | $0.06 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.81 | $-0.11 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.53 | $2.50 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.94 | $1.17 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $566.0M | $1.6B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $6.0B | $3.4B |
| Total Assets | $14.9B | $11.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $566.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $566.0M | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $837.0M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.2B |
| Q1 26 | $6.0B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $6.0B | $3.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.8B | $3.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.8B | $3.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.9B | $3.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.8B | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.7B | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.6B | $6.6B |
| Q1 26 | $14.9B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $14.9B | $11.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.0B | $11.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $15.2B | $11.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $15.0B | $11.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.2B | $11.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $15.1B | $11.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $14.9B | $15.0B |
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 | — | $380.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $364.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 11.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 0.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 3.03× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $875.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $502.0M | $380.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $402.0M | $383.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $233.0M | $292.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-167.0M | $-96.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $540.0M | $107.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $396.0M | $196.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $367.0M | $482.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $390.0M | $364.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $265.0M | $353.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $83.0M | $270.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-314.0M | $-113.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $361.0M | $97.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $276.0M | $158.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $252.0M | $444.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 19.8% | 11.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.0% | 11.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.6% | 8.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -13.7% | -3.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.1% | 3.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.2% | -13.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.7% | 10.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 5.7% | 0.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.2% | 0.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.6% | 0.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.4% | 0.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.0% | 0.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.9% | -3.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.9% | 0.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 4.78× | 3.03× | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.55× | 3.13× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.66× | 1.63× | ||
| Q1 25 | -0.92× | -17.18× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.64× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.20× | 0.60× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.60× | 3.28× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
EMN
Segment breakdown not available.
J
| Infrastructure Advanced Facilities | $2.9B | 89% |
| PA Consulting | $354.4M | 11% |
