vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) and TransDigm Group (TDG), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Huntington Ingalls Industries is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.5B vs $2.3B, roughly 1.5× TransDigm Group). TransDigm Group runs the higher net margin — 4.6% vs 19.5%, a 14.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Huntington Ingalls Industries posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.7% vs 13.9%). TransDigm Group produced more free cash flow last quarter ($772.0M vs $516.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Huntington Ingalls Industries's revenue compounded faster (11.3% CAGR vs 9.1%).
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) is the largest military shipbuilding company in the United States as well as a provider of professional services to partners in government and industry. HII was formed on 31 March 2011, as a divestiture from Northrop Grumman.
TransDigm Group Incorporated is an American publicly traded aerospace manufacturing company headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. TransDigm develops and manufactures engineered aerospace components. It was founded in 1993, when four industrial aerospace companies were combined by a private equity firm in a leveraged buyout. TransDigm expanded the range of aerospace components it manufactures through acquisitions over the years.
HII vs TDG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.5B | $2.3B |
| Net Profit | $159.0M | $445.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | 59.2% |
| Operating Margin | 4.9% | 45.6% |
| Net Margin | 4.6% | 19.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.7% | 13.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 29.3% | -9.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $4.06 | $6.62 |
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 | $3.5B | $2.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.1B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.7B | $2.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.7B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.0B | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.8B | $1.9B |
| Q4 25 | $159.0M | $445.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $145.0M | $610.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $152.0M | $492.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $149.0M | $479.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $123.0M | $493.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $101.0M | $468.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $173.0M | $461.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $153.0M | $403.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 59.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 60.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 59.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 59.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 61.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 57.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 59.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 60.0% |
| Q4 25 | 4.9% | 45.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.0% | 47.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.3% | 46.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.9% | 46.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.7% | 48.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.0% | 43.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.3% | 45.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.5% | 45.2% |
| Q4 25 | 4.6% | 19.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.5% | 25.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.9% | 22.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.4% | 22.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.1% | 24.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.7% | 21.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.8% | 22.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.5% | 21.0% |
| Q4 25 | $4.06 | $6.62 | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.68 | $7.75 | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.86 | $8.47 | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.79 | $8.24 | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.15 | $7.62 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.56 | $5.82 | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.38 | $7.96 | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.87 | $6.97 |
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 | — | $2.5B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.7B | $29.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.1B | $-9.3B |
| Total Assets | $12.7B | $23.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.53× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $6.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.0M | $4.3B |
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $29.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $29.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $24.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $24.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.7B | $24.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $24.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $21.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $21.3B |
| Q4 25 | $5.1B | $-9.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.0B | $-9.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.9B | $-5.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.8B | $-5.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.7B | $-6.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.2B | $-6.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $-2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.1B | $-3.0B |
| Q4 25 | $12.7B | $23.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.3B | $22.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.1B | $22.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $12.1B | $21.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $12.1B | $21.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.1B | $25.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.3B | $21.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.2B | $21.6B |
| Q4 25 | 0.53× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.58× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| 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 | $650.0M | $832.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $516.0M | $772.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 14.8% | 33.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 3.9% | 2.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 4.09× | 1.87× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $794.0M | $1.9B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $650.0M | $832.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $118.0M | $507.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $823.0M | $631.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-395.0M | $148.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $391.0M | $752.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $213.0M | $572.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-9.0M | $608.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-202.0M | $229.0M |
| Q4 25 | $516.0M | $772.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.0M | $441.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $727.0M | $573.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-462.0M | $92.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $277.0M | $710.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $125.0M | $531.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-99.0M | $568.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-277.0M | $181.0M |
| Q4 25 | 14.8% | 33.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | 18.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 23.6% | 25.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -16.9% | 4.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.2% | 35.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.5% | 24.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.3% | 27.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -9.9% | 9.4% |
| Q4 25 | 3.9% | 2.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.3% | 2.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.1% | 2.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.5% | 2.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.8% | 2.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 1.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.0% | 2.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.7% | 2.5% |
| Q4 25 | 4.09× | 1.87× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.81× | 0.83× | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.41× | 1.28× | ||
| Q1 25 | -2.65× | 0.31× | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.18× | 1.53× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.11× | 1.22× | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.05× | 1.32× | ||
| Q1 24 | -1.32× | 0.57× |
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
HII
| Aircraftcarriers | $984.0M | 28% |
| Fixedpriceincentive | $758.0M | 22% |
| Submarines | $744.0M | 21% |
| Surfacecombatantsandcoastguardcutters | $452.0M | 13% |
| Amphibiousassaultships | $433.0M | 12% |
| Costtype | $123.0M | 4% |
| Otherprograms | $4.0M | 0% |
TDG
| Airframe | $1.0B | 45% |
| Defense | $603.0M | 26% |
| Commercial Aftermarket | $368.0M | 16% |
| Commercial OEM | $253.0M | 11% |
| Non Aviation Related Business | $40.0M | 2% |
