vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Jacobs Solutions (J) and Quanta Services (PWR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Quanta Services is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($7.8B vs $3.3B, roughly 2.4× Jacobs Solutions). Quanta Services runs the higher net margin — 3.8% vs 4.0%, a 0.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Quanta Services posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (19.7% vs 12.3%). Quanta Services produced more free cash flow last quarter ($934.0M vs $364.9M). Over the past eight quarters, Quanta Services's revenue compounded faster (24.8% 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.
Quanta Services is a U.S. corporation that provides infrastructure services for the electric power, pipeline, industrial and communications industries. Its capabilities include planning, design, installation, program management, maintenance and repair of most types of network infrastructure. The company has grown organically since its founding, but it has also acquired over 150 companies in the electrical contracting industry.
J vs PWR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.3B | $7.8B |
| Net Profit | $125.5M | $316.6M |
| Gross Margin | 23.2% | 15.5% |
| Operating Margin | 7.1% | 6.2% |
| Net Margin | 3.8% | 4.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 12.3% | 19.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 792.3% | 2.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.12 | $2.08 |
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 | $7.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | $7.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.0B | $6.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.9B | $6.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.9B | $6.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.2B | $6.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $5.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.3B | $5.0B |
| Q4 25 | $125.5M | $316.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $122.2M | $339.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $179.6M | $229.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.6M | $144.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-18.1M | $310.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $325.4M | $293.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $146.9M | $188.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $162.1M | $118.4M |
| Q4 25 | 23.2% | 15.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.3% | 15.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 25.0% | 14.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 25.4% | 13.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.6% | 16.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 15.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.7% | 14.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 21.2% | 12.4% |
| Q4 25 | 7.1% | 6.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.7% | 6.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.8% | 5.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.2% | 3.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.1% | 6.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 6.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.2% | 5.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.6% | 3.1% |
| Q4 25 | 3.8% | 4.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.9% | 4.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.9% | 3.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.2% | 2.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -0.6% | 4.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -28.1% | 4.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.5% | 3.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.8% | 2.4% |
| Q4 25 | $1.12 | $2.08 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.88 | $2.24 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.55 | $1.52 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.06 | $0.96 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.11 | $2.03 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.50 | $1.95 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.17 | $1.26 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.28 | $0.79 |
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 | $439.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $5.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.4B | $8.9B |
| Total Assets | $11.6B | $24.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.59× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.6B | $439.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $610.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $509.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $520.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $742.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $764.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $518.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | $531.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $5.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $5.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $4.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $4.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $4.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.2B |
| Q4 25 | $3.4B | $8.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.6B | $8.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.8B | $7.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.9B | $7.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.2B | $7.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.5B | $7.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.6B | $6.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.6B | $6.4B |
| Q4 25 | $11.6B | $24.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.3B | $22.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.4B | $19.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.2B | $19.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.6B | $18.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8B | $18.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $15.0B | $15.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $14.9B | $15.5B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.59× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.66× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.59× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.58× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.56× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.58× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.45× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.50× |
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 | $1.1B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $364.9M | $934.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 11.1% | 11.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.5% | 2.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 3.03× | 3.56× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $875.3M | $1.6B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $380.8M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $383.1M | $563.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $292.6M | $295.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-96.4M | $243.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $107.5M | $712.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $196.5M | $739.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $482.6M | $391.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-42.8M | $238.0M |
| Q4 25 | $364.9M | $934.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $353.5M | $421.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $270.5M | $155.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-113.7M | $110.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $97.1M | $565.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $158.2M | $527.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $444.9M | $229.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-70.6M | $154.8M |
| Q4 25 | 11.1% | 11.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.2% | 5.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.9% | 2.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -3.9% | 1.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | 8.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | -13.6% | 8.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.5% | 4.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -1.7% | 3.1% |
| Q4 25 | 0.5% | 2.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.9% | 1.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.7% | 2.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.6% | 2.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.4% | 2.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -3.3% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.9% | 2.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.7% | 1.7% |
| Q4 25 | 3.03× | 3.56× | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.13× | 1.66× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.63× | 1.29× | ||
| Q1 25 | -17.18× | 1.69× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.29× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.60× | 2.52× | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.28× | 2.08× | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.26× | 2.01× |
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% |
PWR
Segment breakdown not available.
