vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of HUTCHMED (China) Ltd (HCM) and TIC Solutions, Inc. (TIC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
TIC Solutions, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($508.3M vs $270.8M, roughly 1.9× HUTCHMED (China) Ltd). HUTCHMED (China) Ltd runs the higher net margin — 0.7% vs -9.3%, a 10.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. TIC Solutions, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($37.1M vs $3.4M).
HUTCHMED (China) LtdHCMEarnings & Financial Report
HUTCHMED (China) Ltd is a biopharmaceutical firm focused on discovering, developing and commercializing targeted and immunotherapies for oncology and immunological diseases. It operates across China and global markets, with multiple marketed oncology drugs and a robust pipeline of late-stage clinical candidates addressing unmet patient needs.
HCM vs TIC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $270.8M | $508.3M |
| Net Profit | $2.0M | $-47.2M |
| Gross Margin | 37.7% | 35.2% |
| Operating Margin | -13.2% | -3.8% |
| Net Margin | 0.7% | -9.3% |
| Revenue YoY | -16.5% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | -83.6% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.00 | — |
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.
| Q4 25 | $270.8M | $508.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $473.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $277.7M | $313.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $324.5M | $234.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $305.7M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $532.9M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $202.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $2.0M | $-47.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-13.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $455.0M | $-233.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.9M | $-25.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $25.8M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $168.6M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-162.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | 37.7% | 35.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 32.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.1% | 23.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 48.0% | 18.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 41.1% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | 0.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | -13.2% | -3.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -1.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1.3% | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -5.0% | -4.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -9.0% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 21.0% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | -97.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.7% | -9.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -2.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 163.8% | -0.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.7% | -11.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.4% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 31.6% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | -80.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | $0.00 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.08 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.52 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.01 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.03 | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $0.19 | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-0.19 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.4B | $439.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $93.2M | $1.6B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.2B | $2.2B |
| Total Assets | $1.8B | $4.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.08× | 0.74× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $439.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $164.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $130.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $836.1M | $155.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $802.5M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $856.2M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $826.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | $93.2M | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $93.4M | $751.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $82.8M | $752.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $82.1M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $40.1M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $418.0K | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $759.9M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $740.1M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $782.0M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $799.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.8B | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $1.2B | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.08× | 0.74× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.83× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.08× | 0.64× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.11× | 0.67× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.11× | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 0.05× | — | ||
| Q2 22 | 0.00× | — |
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 | $8.2M | $49.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $3.4M | $37.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 1.2% | 7.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 1.8% | 2.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 4.21× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-96.2M | $61.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $8.2M | $49.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $19.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-72.9M | $-6.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $40.3M | $32.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-39.8M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $226.4M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-89.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | $3.4M | $37.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $10.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-82.2M | $-14.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $32.5M | $28.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-49.9M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $202.0M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-105.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.2% | 7.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -29.6% | -4.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.0% | 12.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -16.3% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 37.9% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | -52.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.8% | 2.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.3% | 2.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.4% | 1.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.3% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 4.6% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | 7.8% | — |
| Q4 25 | 4.21× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.16× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.38× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.54× | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 1.34× | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
HCM
Segment breakdown not available.
TIC
| Consulting Engineering Segment | $300.1M | 59% |
| Geospatial Segment | $131.3M | 26% |
| Fixed Unit Price Contracts | $54.3M | 11% |
| Other | $22.6M | 4% |
