vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of GREIF, INC (GEF) and SILGAN HOLDINGS INC (SLGN), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
SILGAN HOLDINGS INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.5B vs $994.8M, roughly 1.5× GREIF, INC). GREIF, INC runs the higher net margin — 17.6% vs 1.2%, a 16.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, SILGAN HOLDINGS INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (4.1% vs -29.8%). Over the past eight quarters, SILGAN HOLDINGS INC's revenue compounded faster (5.6% CAGR vs -14.8%).
Greif, Inc. is a global leader in industrial packaging products and services based in Delaware, Ohio. Originally a manufacturer of barrels, the company is now focused on producing steel, fiber and plastic drums, IBCs, jerrycans, plastic bottles, closures, containerboard, corrugated products and adhesives. In 2018, the company ranked 617 on the Fortune 1000.
Silgan Holdings Inc. is an American manufacturing company based in Connecticut that produces consumer goods packaging. The company was founded in 1987 by two former executives of Continental Can, Phil Silver and Greg Horrigan – their names contributing to the company name.
GEF vs SLGN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $994.8M | $1.5B |
| Net Profit | $174.6M | $18.2M |
| Gross Margin | 20.4% | 17.2% |
| Operating Margin | 25.8% | 3.6% |
| Net Margin | 17.6% | 1.2% |
| Revenue YoY | -29.8% | 4.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 149.1% | -59.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.18 |
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 | $994.8M | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.3B |
| Q4 25 | $174.6M | $18.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $64.0M | $113.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $47.3M | $88.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.6M | $68.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $70.1M | $45.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $87.1M | $100.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $44.4M | $76.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $55.2M |
| Q4 25 | 20.4% | 17.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 22.7% | 16.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 23.1% | 19.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.4% | 18.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 20.4% | 16.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.0% | 16.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.7% | 18.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 17.0% |
| Q4 25 | 25.8% | 3.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.4% | 7.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.6% | 7.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.7% | 6.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.9% | 3.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.8% | 7.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.2% | 7.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 5.5% |
| Q4 25 | 17.6% | 1.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.6% | 5.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.4% | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.7% | 4.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.9% | 3.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.0% | 5.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.2% | 5.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 4.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.18 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.06 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.83 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.63 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.42 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.93 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.71 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0.52 |
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 | $243.5M | $1.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $655.1M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.9B | $2.3B |
| Total Assets | $5.5B | $9.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.22× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $243.5M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $285.2M | $389.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $252.7M | $317.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $201.1M | $353.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $197.7M | $822.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $194.2M | $368.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $196.0M | $302.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $308.6M |
| Q4 25 | $655.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.7B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.9B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $2.9B | $2.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $2.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | $2.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.1B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0B | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.9B |
| Q4 25 | $5.5B | $9.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.7B | $9.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.8B | $9.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.6B | $8.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.6B | $8.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.8B | $7.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.8B | $7.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $7.6B |
| Q4 25 | 0.22× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.06× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.12× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.24× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.31× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.41× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.44× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $-24.4M | $1.3B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $1.2B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 83.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 4.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | -0.14× | 71.07× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $422.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-24.4M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $197.7M | $340.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $136.4M | $-221.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-30.8M | $-683.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $187.2M | $935.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $76.8M | $313.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $87.5M | $20.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-547.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $260.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-294.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-766.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $865.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $252.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-35.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-623.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | 83.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 13.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -19.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -52.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 61.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 14.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -2.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -47.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 4.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 4.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 5.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 5.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 4.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 5.7% |
| Q4 25 | -0.14× | 71.07× | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.09× | 3.01× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.88× | -2.49× | ||
| Q1 25 | -3.58× | -10.06× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.67× | 20.77× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.88× | 3.13× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.97× | 0.27× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -9.93× |
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
GEF
| Other | $501.0M | 50% |
| Sustainable Fiber Solutions Segment | $300.4M | 30% |
| Customized Polymer Solutions Segment | $124.8M | 13% |
| Durable Metal Solutions Segment | $62.5M | 6% |
| Innovative Closure Solutions Segment | $6.1M | 1% |
SLGN
| Metal Containers | $675.6M | 46% |
| Dispensing And Specialty Closures | $643.6M | 44% |
| Custom Containers | $149.4M | 10% |
