vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of L3Harris (LHX) and Schlumberger (SLB). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Schlumberger is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($8.7B vs $5.7B, roughly 1.5× L3Harris). L3Harris runs the higher net margin — 8.9% vs 8.6%, a 0.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, L3Harris posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (24.0% vs 2.7%). Schlumberger produced more free cash flow last quarter ($103.0M vs $-187.0M). Over the past eight quarters, L3Harris's revenue compounded faster (5.0% CAGR vs -2.3%).
L3Harris Technologies, Inc. is an American technology company, defense contractor, and information technology services provider that produces products for command and control systems, wireless equipment, tactical radios, avionics and electronic systems, night vision equipment, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C3ISR) systems and products, ocean systems, instrumentation, navigation products, training devices and services, and both terrestrial/spaceborne antennas for use in the govern...
SLB, formerly known as Schlumberger, is an American multinational oilfield services company. Founded in France in 1926, the company is now incorporated as SLB N.V. in Willemstad, Curaçao, with principal executive offices in four cities: Paris, France; Houston, Texas, United States; London, UK; and The Hague, Netherlands. As of 2022, it is both the world's largest offshore drilling company and the world's largest offshore drilling contractor by revenue.
LHX vs SLB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2027 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $5.7B | $8.7B |
| Net Profit | $512.0M | $752.0M |
| Gross Margin | 175.6% | — |
| Operating Margin | 11.4% | — |
| Net Margin | 8.9% | 8.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 24.0% | 2.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 32.6% | -5.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.72 | $0.50 |
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 | $21.9B | $8.7B | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.7B | $9.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $8.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.4B | $8.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.5B | $8.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $9.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.3B | $9.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.3B | $9.1B |
| Q1 26 | — | $752.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $462.0M | $824.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $739.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $458.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $453.0M | $797.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $400.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $366.0M | $1.1B |
| Q1 26 | 25.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 26.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 24.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 25.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 25.7% | — |
| Q1 26 | 9.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 11.0% | 9.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 11.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.5% | 15.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.3% | 12.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 14.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.4% | 16.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.0% | 15.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | 8.6% | ||
| Q4 25 | 8.2% | 8.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 8.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.4% | 11.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.2% | 9.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 11.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.6% | 12.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.9% | 12.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.50 | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.46 | $0.53 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.50 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.44 | $0.74 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.37 | $0.58 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.77 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.10 | $0.83 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.92 | $0.77 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $590.0K | $3.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $350.0K | $9.7B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $19.7M | $27.4B |
| Total Assets | $41.4M | $19.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.02× | 0.35× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $1.1B | $3.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | $339.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $571.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $482.0M | $511.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $615.0M | $961.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $539.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $547.0M | $1.1B |
| Q1 26 | $10.4B | $9.7B | ||
| Q4 25 | $11.0B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.0B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.1B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.5B | — |
| Q1 26 | $19.6B | $27.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | $19.5B | $26.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $25.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $19.3B | $20.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $19.5B | $19.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $21.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $19.0B | $21.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.8B | $21.1B |
| Q1 26 | $41.2B | $19.3B | ||
| Q4 25 | $41.0B | $54.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $55.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $41.2B | $48.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $42.0B | $49.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $48.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $41.9B | $49.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $41.7B | $49.4B |
| Q1 26 | 0.53× | 0.35× | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.56× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.57× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.57× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.58× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.56× | — |
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 | $-95.0M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-187.0M | $103.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -3.3% | 1.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 1.7% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | -0.19× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $4.6B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $546.0M | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $640.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $660.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $780.0M | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $754.0M | $1.4B |
| Q1 26 | — | $103.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $427.0M | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $552.0M | $771.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $262.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $702.0M | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $657.0M | $973.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | 1.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | 7.5% | 25.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 14.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.2% | 9.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 18.3% | 3.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 19.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.3% | 21.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.4% | 10.6% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.1% | 5.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 4.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.6% | 4.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.1% | 4.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.5% | 5.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.8% | 5.1% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.18× | 3.65× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.28× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.40× | 1.13× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.49× | 0.83× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.18× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.95× | 2.06× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.06× | 1.29× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
LHX
| Space & Mission Systems | $3.0B | 52% |
| Communication & Spectrum Dominance | $1.9B | 32% |
| Missile Solutions | $990.0M | 17% |
SLB
Segment breakdown not available.
