vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Fair Isaac (FICO) and Palantir Technologies (PLTR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Palantir Technologies is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.4B vs $512.0M, roughly 2.7× Fair Isaac). Palantir Technologies runs the higher net margin — 30.9% vs 43.3%, a 12.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Palantir Technologies posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (70.0% vs 16.4%). Palantir Technologies produced more free cash flow last quarter ($764.0M vs $173.9M). Over the past eight quarters, Palantir Technologies's revenue compounded faster (48.9% CAGR vs 8.6%).
FICO, originally Fair, Isaac and Company, is an American data analytics company based in Bozeman, Montana, focused on credit scoring services. It was founded by Bill Fair and Earl Isaac in 1956. Its FICO score, a measure of consumer credit risk, has become a fixture of consumer lending in the United States.
Palantir Technologies Inc. is an American publicly traded company that develops data integration and analytics platforms enabling government agencies, militaries, and corporations to combine and analyze data from multiple sources. Its flagship products—Gotham and Foundry —connect previously siloed databases to support intelligence operations, counterterrorism analysis, law enforcement, and enterprise analytics.
FICO vs PLTR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $512.0M | $1.4B |
| Net Profit | $158.4M | $608.7M |
| Gross Margin | 83.0% | 84.6% |
| Operating Margin | 45.7% | 40.9% |
| Net Margin | 30.9% | 43.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 16.4% | 70.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 3.8% | 670.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $6.61 | $0.24 |
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 | $512.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $515.8M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $536.4M | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $498.7M | $883.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $440.0M | $827.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $453.8M | $725.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $447.8M | $678.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $433.8M | $634.3M |
| Q4 25 | $158.4M | $608.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $155.0M | $475.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $181.8M | $326.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $162.6M | $214.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $152.5M | $79.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $135.7M | $143.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $126.3M | $134.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $129.8M | $105.5M |
| Q4 25 | 83.0% | 84.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 82.3% | 82.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 83.7% | 80.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 82.4% | 80.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 80.1% | 78.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 80.3% | 79.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 80.3% | 81.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 80.0% | 81.7% |
| Q4 25 | 45.7% | 40.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 46.0% | 33.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 48.9% | 26.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 49.3% | 19.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 40.8% | 1.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 43.4% | 15.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 42.5% | 15.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 44.9% | 12.8% |
| Q4 25 | 30.9% | 43.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 30.1% | 40.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.9% | 32.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 32.6% | 24.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 34.7% | 9.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 29.9% | 19.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 28.2% | 19.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.9% | 16.6% |
| Q4 25 | $6.61 | $0.24 | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.41 | $0.18 | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.40 | $0.13 | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.59 | $0.08 | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.14 | $0.03 | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.44 | $0.06 | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.05 | $0.06 | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.16 | $0.04 |
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 | $162.0M | $7.2B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $3.2B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $-1.8B | $7.4B |
| Total Assets | $1.9B | $8.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $162.0M | $7.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $134.1M | $6.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $189.0M | $6.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $146.6M | $5.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $184.3M | $5.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $150.7M | $4.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $156.0M | $4.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $135.7M | $3.9B |
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.1B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.8B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.2B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.1B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.0B | — |
| Q4 25 | $-1.8B | $7.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.7B | $6.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.4B | $5.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.1B | $5.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.1B | $5.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $-962.7M | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $-829.3M | $4.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-735.7M | $3.8B |
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $8.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $8.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | $7.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $6.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7B | $6.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $5.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $5.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7B | $4.8B |
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 | $174.1M | $777.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $173.9M | $764.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 34.0% | 54.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.0% | 0.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.10× | 1.28× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $750.6M | $2.1B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $174.1M | $777.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $223.7M | $507.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $286.2M | $539.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $74.9M | $310.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $194.0M | $460.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $226.5M | $419.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $213.3M | $144.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $71.0M | $129.6M |
| Q4 25 | $173.9M | $764.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $219.5M | $500.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $284.4M | $531.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $72.8M | $304.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $193.2M | $457.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $224.7M | $415.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $211.6M | $141.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $67.0M | $126.9M |
| Q4 25 | 34.0% | 54.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 42.6% | 42.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 53.0% | 53.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.6% | 34.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 43.9% | 55.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 49.5% | 57.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 47.2% | 20.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 15.4% | 20.0% |
| Q4 25 | 0.0% | 0.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.8% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.3% | 0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.4% | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.2% | 0.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.4% | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.4% | 0.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.9% | 0.4% |
| Q4 25 | 1.10× | 1.28× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.44× | 1.07× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.57× | 1.65× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.46× | 1.45× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.27× | 5.83× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.67× | 2.92× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.69× | 1.08× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.55× | 1.23× |
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
FICO
| Business To Business Scores | $248.6M | 49% |
| Saa S Products | $115.7M | 23% |
| Platform Software | $73.9M | 14% |
| Business To Consumer Scores | $55.9M | 11% |
| Technology Service | $19.2M | 4% |
PLTR
Segment breakdown not available.
