vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) and Textron (TXT), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Textron is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.2B vs $3.5B, roughly 1.2× Huntington Ingalls Industries). Textron runs the higher net margin — 4.6% vs 5.6%, a 1.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Huntington Ingalls Industries posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.7% vs 15.6%). Textron produced more free cash flow last quarter ($527.0M vs $516.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Textron's revenue compounded faster (15.4% CAGR vs 11.3%).
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.
Textron Inc. is an American industrial conglomerate based in Providence, Rhode Island. Textron's subsidiaries include Bell Textron, Kautex, Textron Aviation, and Lycoming Engines. It was founded by Royal Little in 1923 as the Special Yarns Company. In 2020, Textron employed over 33,000 people in 25 countries. The company ranked 265th on the 2021 Fortune 500 of the largest United States corporations by revenue.
HII vs TXT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.5B | $4.2B |
| Net Profit | $159.0M | $235.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 4.9% | — |
| Net Margin | 4.6% | 5.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.7% | 15.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | 29.3% | 66.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $4.06 | — |
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 | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | $3.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.1B | $3.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.7B | $3.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.7B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.0B | $3.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.8B | $3.1B |
| Q4 25 | $159.0M | $235.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $145.0M | $234.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $152.0M | $245.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $149.0M | $207.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $123.0M | $141.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $101.0M | $223.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $173.0M | $259.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $153.0M | $201.0M |
| Q4 25 | 4.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.7% | 3.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.0% | 7.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.3% | 9.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.5% | 7.6% |
| Q4 25 | 4.6% | 5.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.5% | 6.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.9% | 6.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.4% | 6.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.1% | 3.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.7% | 6.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.8% | 7.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.5% | 6.4% |
| Q4 25 | $4.06 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.68 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.86 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.79 | $1.13 | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.15 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.56 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.38 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.87 | $1.03 |
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 | — | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.7B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.1B | — |
| Total Assets | $12.7B | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.53× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.7B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $5.1B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.0B | $7.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.9B | $7.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.8B | $7.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.7B | $7.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.2B | $7.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $6.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.1B | $6.9B |
| Q4 25 | $12.7B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.3B | $17.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.1B | $17.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $12.1B | $16.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $12.1B | $16.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.1B | $16.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.3B | $16.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.2B | $16.4B |
| 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 | $700.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $516.0M | $527.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 14.8% | 12.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 3.9% | 4.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 4.09× | 2.98× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $794.0M | $929.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $650.0M | $700.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $118.0M | $349.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $823.0M | $387.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-395.0M | $-124.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $391.0M | $446.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $213.0M | $208.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-9.0M | $367.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-202.0M | $-7.0M |
| Q4 25 | $516.0M | $527.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.0M | $273.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $727.0M | $309.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-462.0M | $-180.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $277.0M | $293.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $125.0M | $137.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-99.0M | $293.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-277.0M | $-73.0M |
| Q4 25 | 14.8% | 12.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | 7.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 23.6% | 8.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -16.9% | -5.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.2% | 8.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.5% | 4.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.3% | 8.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -9.9% | -2.3% |
| Q4 25 | 3.9% | 4.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.3% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.1% | 2.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.5% | 1.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.8% | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.0% | 2.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.7% | 2.1% |
| Q4 25 | 4.09× | 2.98× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.81× | 1.49× | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.41× | 1.58× | ||
| Q1 25 | -2.65× | -0.60× | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.18× | 3.16× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.11× | 0.93× | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.05× | 1.42× | ||
| Q1 24 | -1.32× | -0.03× |
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% |
TXT
Segment breakdown not available.
