vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of LINCOLN ELECTRIC HOLDINGS INC (LECO) and Opendoor Technologies Inc. (OPEN). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
LINCOLN ELECTRIC HOLDINGS INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $736.0M, roughly 1.5× Opendoor Technologies Inc.). LINCOLN ELECTRIC HOLDINGS INC runs the higher net margin — 12.2% vs -148.9%, a 161.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, LINCOLN ELECTRIC HOLDINGS INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.7% vs -32.1%). Opendoor Technologies Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($67.0M vs $63.0M). Over the past eight quarters, LINCOLN ELECTRIC HOLDINGS INC's revenue compounded faster (4.8% CAGR vs -21.1%).
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is an American multinational and global manufacturer of welding products, arc welding equipment, welding accessories, plasma and oxy-fuel cutting equipment and robotic welding systems headquartered in Euclid, Ohio. It has a network of distributors and sales offices covering more than 160 countries and 42 manufacturing locations in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. It also operates manufacturing alliances and joint ventures in 19 co...
Opendoor Technologies Inc. is an online company that buys and sells residential real estate. Headquartered in San Francisco, it makes instant cash offers on homes through an online process, makes repairs on the properties it purchases and re-lists them for sale. It also provides mobile application-based home buying services along with financing. As of November 2021, the company operates in 44 markets in the US.
LECO vs OPEN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.1B | $736.0M |
| Net Profit | $136.4M | $-1.1B |
| Gross Margin | 35.6% | 7.7% |
| Operating Margin | 16.6% | -20.4% |
| Net Margin | 12.2% | -148.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.7% | -32.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 15.1% | -869.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.47 | $-1.42 |
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.
| Q1 26 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $736.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $915.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $983.8M | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $1.5B |
| Q1 26 | $136.4M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $136.0M | $-1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $122.6M | $-90.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $143.4M | $-29.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $118.5M | $-85.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $140.2M | $-113.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $100.8M | $-78.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $101.7M | $-92.0M |
| Q1 26 | 35.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 34.7% | 7.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.7% | 7.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 37.3% | 8.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 36.4% | 8.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 36.1% | 7.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 35.8% | 7.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 37.6% | 8.5% |
| Q1 26 | 16.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 17.1% | -20.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.6% | -7.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.6% | -0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.4% | -4.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.3% | -8.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.8% | -4.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.6% | -4.8% |
| Q1 26 | 12.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.6% | -148.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.6% | -9.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.2% | -1.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.8% | -7.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.7% | -10.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.2% | -5.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.0% | -6.1% |
| Q1 26 | $2.47 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.45 | $-1.42 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.21 | $-0.12 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.56 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.10 | $-0.12 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.47 | $-0.16 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.77 | $-0.11 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.77 | $-0.13 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $298.9M | $962.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $1.3B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.5B | $1.0B |
| Total Assets | $3.9B | $2.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.87× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $298.9M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $308.8M | $962.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $293.0M | $962.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $299.5M | $789.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $394.7M | $559.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $377.3M | $679.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $404.2M | $837.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $272.7M | $809.0M |
| Q1 26 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $811.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $631.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $645.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $713.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $801.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3B | $845.0M |
| Q1 26 | $3.9B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.8B | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.8B | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.7B | $2.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.6B | $3.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.5B | $3.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.7B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.4B | $3.4B |
| Q1 26 | 0.87× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
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 | $102.2M | $70.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $63.0M | $67.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 5.6% | 9.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 3.5% | 0.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.75× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $438.5M | $1.0B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $102.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $95.0M | $70.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $236.7M | $435.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $143.8M | $823.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $185.7M | $-279.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $95.8M | $-80.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $199.2M | $62.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $170.7M | $-399.0M |
| Q1 26 | $63.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $52.0M | $67.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $205.1M | $432.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $118.4M | $821.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $158.7M | $-283.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $64.3M | $-83.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $163.5M | $56.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $147.5M | $-407.0M |
| Q1 26 | 5.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 4.8% | 9.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.3% | 47.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.9% | 52.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.8% | -24.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.3% | -7.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.6% | 4.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.4% | -26.9% |
| Q1 26 | 3.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 4.0% | 0.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.0% | 0.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.3% | 0.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.7% | 0.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.1% | 0.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.6% | 0.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.3% | 0.5% |
| Q1 26 | 0.75× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.70× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.93× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.00× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.57× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.68× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.98× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.68× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
