vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of EPAM Systems (EPAM) and STERLING INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. (STRL). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
EPAM Systems is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.4B vs $755.6M, roughly 1.9× STERLING INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.). STERLING INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. runs the higher net margin — 11.6% vs 5.9%, a 5.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, STERLING INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (51.5% vs 7.6%). Over the past eight quarters, STERLING INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.'s revenue compounded faster (31.0% CAGR vs 10.5%).
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.
Sterling & Wilson is an Indian multinational engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) company headquartered in Mumbai, Maharashtra. It operates across multiple sectors including renewable energy, data centers, diesel power generation, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) services. The company has delivered projects in over 30 countries, with execution teams located across Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Australia.
EPAM vs STRL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.4B | $755.6M |
| Net Profit | $82.5M | $87.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | 21.7% |
| Operating Margin | 8.3% | 15.9% |
| Net Margin | 5.9% | 11.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.6% | 51.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | 12.3% | -22.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.52 | $2.82 |
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 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $755.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $689.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $614.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $430.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $498.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $593.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $582.8M |
| Q1 26 | $82.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $109.4M | $87.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $106.8M | $92.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $88.0M | $71.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $73.5M | $39.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $103.3M | $113.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $136.3M | $61.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $98.6M | $51.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 30.1% | 21.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 29.5% | 24.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 28.8% | 23.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 26.9% | 22.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 30.4% | 21.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 34.6% | 21.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 29.3% | 19.3% |
| Q1 26 | 8.3% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 10.6% | 15.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.4% | 18.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.3% | 17.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.6% | 13.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.9% | 12.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.2% | 14.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.5% | 12.5% |
| Q1 26 | 5.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 7.8% | 11.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.7% | 13.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.5% | 11.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.6% | 9.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.3% | 22.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.7% | 10.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.6% | 8.9% |
| Q1 26 | $1.52 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.97 | $2.82 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.91 | $2.97 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.56 | $2.31 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.28 | $1.28 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.80 | $3.63 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.37 | $1.97 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.70 | $1.67 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.0B | $390.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $165.0M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.4B | $1.1B |
| Total Assets | $4.7B | $2.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.05× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $390.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $306.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $699.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $638.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $664.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | $648.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $540.0M |
| Q1 26 | $165.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | $3.4B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.7B | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.7B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.7B | $881.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.6B | $805.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.6B | $808.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.6B | $716.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.4B | $670.7M |
| Q1 26 | $4.7B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $4.9B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.8B | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.7B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.7B | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.8B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.5B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $2.0B |
| Q1 26 | 0.05× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
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 | — | $186.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $159.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 21.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 3.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 2.12× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $362.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $282.9M | $186.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $294.7M | $83.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $53.2M | $85.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $24.2M | $84.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $130.3M | $174.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $242.0M | $152.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $57.0M | $121.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $268.1M | $159.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $286.4M | $64.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $43.4M | $72.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.8M | $67.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $114.5M | $158.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $237.0M | $138.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $52.3M | $92.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 19.0% | 21.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.5% | 9.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.2% | 11.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.1% | 15.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.2% | 31.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.3% | 23.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.6% | 15.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.1% | 3.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.6% | 2.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.7% | 2.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.7% | 4.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.3% | 3.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.4% | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.4% | 5.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.59× | 2.12× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.76× | 0.91× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.60× | 1.20× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.33× | 2.15× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.26× | 1.54× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.77× | 2.48× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.58× | 2.33× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
EPAM
Segment breakdown not available.
STRL
| Lump Sum | $464.9M | 62% |
| Heavy Highway | $99.6M | 13% |
| Residential Construction | $70.4M | 9% |
| Road And Highway Builders LLC | $52.4M | 7% |
| Other Revenue | $36.6M | 5% |
| Aviation | $16.6M | 2% |
| Commercial | $11.4M | 2% |
| Related Party | $600.0K | 0% |
