vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of LINCOLN ELECTRIC HOLDINGS INC (LECO) and TIMKEN CO (TKR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
TIMKEN CO is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $1.1B, roughly 1.0× LINCOLN ELECTRIC HOLDINGS INC). LINCOLN ELECTRIC HOLDINGS INC runs the higher net margin — 12.6% vs 5.6%, a 7.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, LINCOLN ELECTRIC HOLDINGS INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (5.5% vs 3.5%). TIMKEN CO produced more free cash flow last quarter ($140.7M vs $52.0M). Over the past eight quarters, LINCOLN ELECTRIC HOLDINGS INC's revenue compounded faster (4.9% CAGR vs -3.4%).
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...
The Timken Company is a global manufacturer of engineered bearings and industrial motion products. Headquartered in North Canton, Ohio, the company operates from 45 countries.
LECO vs TKR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.1B | $1.1B |
| Net Profit | $136.0M | $62.3M |
| Gross Margin | 34.7% | 29.3% |
| Operating Margin | 17.1% | 9.8% |
| Net Margin | 12.6% | 5.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 5.5% | 3.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | -3.0% | -12.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.45 | $0.89 |
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 | $1.1B | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $983.8M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $981.2M | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $136.0M | $62.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $122.6M | $69.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $143.4M | $78.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $118.5M | $78.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $140.2M | $71.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $100.8M | $81.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $101.7M | $96.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $123.4M | $103.5M |
| Q4 25 | 34.7% | 29.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.7% | 30.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 37.3% | 30.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 36.4% | 31.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 36.1% | 30.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 35.8% | 30.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 37.6% | 31.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 37.5% | 33.4% |
| Q4 25 | 17.1% | 9.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.6% | 12.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.6% | 12.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.4% | 12.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.3% | 10.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.8% | 13.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.6% | 14.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.8% | 15.5% |
| Q4 25 | 12.6% | 5.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.6% | 6.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.2% | 6.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.8% | 6.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.7% | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.2% | 7.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.0% | 8.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 12.6% | 8.7% |
| Q4 25 | $2.45 | $0.89 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.21 | $0.99 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.56 | $1.12 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.10 | $1.11 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.47 | $1.01 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.77 | $1.16 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.77 | $1.36 | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.14 | $1.46 |
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 | $308.8M | $364.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.9B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.5B | $3.2B |
| Total Assets | $3.8B | $6.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.60× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $308.8M | $364.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $293.0M | $449.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $299.5M | $419.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $394.7M | $376.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $377.3M | $373.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $404.2M | $412.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $272.7M | $469.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $375.0M | $421.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.2B |
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $2.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $2.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3B | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.3B | $2.6B |
| Q4 25 | $3.8B | $6.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.8B | $6.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.7B | $6.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.6B | $6.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.5B | $6.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.7B | $6.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.4B | $6.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.4B | $6.5B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.60× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.67× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.70× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.73× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.73× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.75× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.77× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.83× |
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 | $95.0M | $183.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $52.0M | $140.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 4.8% | 12.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 4.0% | 3.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.70× | 2.94× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $534.2M | $406.1M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $95.0M | $183.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $236.7M | $201.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $143.8M | $111.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $185.7M | $58.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $95.8M | $178.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $199.2M | $123.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $170.7M | $124.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $133.3M | $49.3M |
| Q4 25 | $52.0M | $140.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $205.1M | $163.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $118.4M | $78.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $158.7M | $23.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $64.3M | $125.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $163.5M | $88.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $147.5M | $87.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $107.0M | $5.2M |
| Q4 25 | 4.8% | 12.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.3% | 14.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.9% | 6.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.8% | 2.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.3% | 11.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.6% | 7.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.4% | 7.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.9% | 0.4% |
| Q4 25 | 4.0% | 3.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.0% | 3.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.3% | 2.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.7% | 3.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.1% | 5.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.6% | 3.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.3% | 3.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.7% | 3.7% |
| Q4 25 | 0.70× | 2.94× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.93× | 2.90× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.00× | 1.42× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.57× | 0.75× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.68× | 2.51× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.98× | 1.51× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.68× | 1.30× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.08× | 0.48× |
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
LECO
| Americas Welding | $681.9M | 63% |
| International Welding | $259.4M | 24% |
| Harris Products Group | $137.4M | 13% |
TKR
Segment breakdown not available.
