vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Jacobs Solutions (J) and 3M (MMM), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
3M is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($6.1B vs $3.3B, roughly 1.9× Jacobs Solutions). 3M runs the higher net margin — 3.8% vs 9.4%, a 5.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Jacobs Solutions posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (12.3% vs 2.0%). 3M produced more free cash flow last quarter ($1.3B vs $364.9M). Over the past eight quarters, 3M's revenue compounded faster (1.0% CAGR vs -12.2%).
Jacobs Solutions Inc. is an American international technical professional services firm based in Dallas. The company provides engineering, technical, professional, and construction services as well as scientific and specialty consulting for a broad range of clients globally, including companies, organizations, and government agencies. Jacobs has consistently ranked No.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer goods. Based in the Saint Paul suburb of Maplewood, the company produces over 60,000 products, including adhesives, abrasives, laminates, passive fire protection, personal protective equipment, window films, paint protection film, electrical, electronic connecting, insulating materials, car-care products, electronic circuits, and optical films. Among its best-known consume...
J vs MMM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.3B | $6.1B |
| Net Profit | $125.5M | $577.0M |
| Gross Margin | 23.2% | 33.6% |
| Operating Margin | 7.1% | 13.0% |
| Net Margin | 3.8% | 9.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 12.3% | 2.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 792.3% | -20.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.12 | $1.07 |
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 | $3.3B | $6.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | $6.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.0B | $6.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.9B | $6.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.9B | $6.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.2B | $6.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $6.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.3B | $6.0B |
| Q4 25 | $125.5M | $577.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $122.2M | $834.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $179.6M | $723.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.6M | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $-18.1M | $728.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $325.4M | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $146.9M | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $162.1M | $928.0M |
| Q4 25 | 23.2% | 33.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.3% | 41.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 25.0% | 42.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 25.4% | 41.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.6% | 51.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 42.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.7% | 42.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 21.2% | 28.0% |
| Q4 25 | 7.1% | 13.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.7% | 22.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.8% | 18.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.2% | 20.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.1% | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 20.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.2% | 20.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.6% | 25.0% |
| Q4 25 | 3.8% | 9.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.9% | 12.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.9% | 11.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.2% | 18.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -0.6% | 12.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -28.1% | 21.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.5% | 18.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.8% | 15.4% |
| Q4 25 | $1.12 | $1.07 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.88 | $1.55 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.55 | $1.34 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.06 | $2.04 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.11 | $1.33 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.50 | $2.48 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.17 | $2.07 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.28 | $1.67 |
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 | $1.6B | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $12.6B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.4B | $4.7B |
| Total Assets | $11.6B | $37.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 2.68× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $12.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $12.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $13.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $13.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $13.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $13.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $13.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $13.1B |
| Q4 25 | $3.4B | $4.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.6B | $4.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.8B | $4.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.9B | $4.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.2B | $3.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.5B | $4.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.6B | $3.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.6B | $4.9B |
| Q4 25 | $11.6B | $37.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.3B | $37.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.4B | $38.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.2B | $40.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.6B | $39.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8B | $40.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $15.0B | $43.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $14.9B | $55.2B |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.68× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.72× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.06× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.02× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.40× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.84× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 3.34× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.69× |
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 | $380.8M | $1.6B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $364.9M | $1.3B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 11.1% | 21.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.5% | 4.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 3.03× | 2.74× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $875.3M | $1.4B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $380.8M | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $383.1M | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $292.6M | $-954.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-96.4M | $-79.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $107.5M | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $196.5M | $-1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $482.6M | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-42.8M | $767.0M |
| Q4 25 | $364.9M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $353.5M | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $270.5M | $-1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $-113.7M | $-315.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $97.1M | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $158.2M | $-2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $444.9M | $752.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-70.6M | $392.0M |
| Q4 25 | 11.1% | 21.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.2% | 23.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.9% | -18.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -3.9% | -5.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | 25.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -13.6% | -32.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.5% | 12.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | -1.7% | 6.5% |
| Q4 25 | 0.5% | 4.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.9% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.7% | 3.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.6% | 4.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.4% | 4.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -3.3% | 3.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.9% | 4.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.7% | 6.2% |
| Q4 25 | 3.03× | 2.74× | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.13× | 2.11× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.63× | -1.32× | ||
| Q1 25 | -17.18× | -0.07× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.50× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.60× | -1.30× | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.28× | 0.89× | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.26× | 0.83× |
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
J
| Infrastructure Advanced Facilities | $2.9B | 89% |
| PA Consulting | $354.4M | 11% |
MMM
| Personal Safety | $917.0M | 15% |
| Electronics | $700.0M | 11% |
| Commercial Branding And Transportation | $606.0M | 10% |
| Industrial Adhesives And Tapes | $568.0M | 9% |
| Automotive And Aerospace | $468.0M | 8% |
| Home Improvement | $369.0M | 6% |
| Electrical Markets | $347.0M | 6% |
| Abrasives | $341.0M | 6% |
| Automotive Aftermarket | $304.0M | 5% |
| Packaging And Expression | $294.0M | 5% |
| Industrial Specialties Division | $293.0M | 5% |
| Home And Auto Care | $291.0M | 5% |
| Consumer Safety And Well Being | $260.0M | 4% |
| Advanced Materials | $187.0M | 3% |
| Roofing Granules | $95.0M | 2% |
