vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Microsoft (MSFT) and Palo Alto Networks (PANW), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Microsoft is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($81.3B vs $2.6B, roughly 31.3× Palo Alto Networks). Microsoft runs the higher net margin — 47.3% vs 16.7%, a 30.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Microsoft posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (16.7% vs 14.9%). Microsoft produced more free cash flow last quarter ($5.9B vs $384.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Microsoft's revenue compounded faster (14.6% CAGR vs 14.3%).
Microsoft Corporation is an American multinational technology conglomerate headquartered in Redmond, Washington. Founded in 1975, the company became influential in the rise of personal computers through software like Windows, and has since expanded to Internet services, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, video gaming, and other fields.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. is an American multinational cybersecurity company with headquarters in Santa Clara, California. The core product is a platform that includes advanced firewalls and cloud-based offerings that extend those firewalls to cover other aspects of security. The company serves over 70,000 organizations in over 150 countries, including 85 of the Fortune 100. It is home to the Unit 42 threat research team and hosts the Ignite cybersecurity conference.
MSFT vs PANW — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q2 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $81.3B | $2.6B |
| Net Profit | $38.5B | $432.0M |
| Gross Margin | 68.0% | 73.6% |
| Operating Margin | 47.1% | 15.3% |
| Net Margin | 47.3% | 16.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 16.7% | 14.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 59.5% | 61.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $5.16 | $0.61 |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $2.6B | ||
| Q4 25 | $81.3B | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $77.7B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $76.4B | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $70.1B | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $69.6B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $65.6B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $64.7B | $2.0B |
| Q1 26 | — | $432.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $38.5B | $334.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $27.7B | $253.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $27.2B | $262.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.8B | $267.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $24.1B | $350.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $24.7B | $357.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $22.0B | $278.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | 73.6% | ||
| Q4 25 | 68.0% | 74.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 69.0% | 73.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 68.6% | 72.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 68.7% | 73.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 68.7% | 74.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 69.4% | 73.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 69.6% | 74.1% |
| Q1 26 | — | 15.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | 47.1% | 12.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 48.9% | 19.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 44.9% | 9.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 45.7% | 10.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 45.5% | 13.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 46.6% | 10.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 43.1% | 8.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | 16.7% | ||
| Q4 25 | 47.3% | 13.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 35.7% | 10.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 35.6% | 11.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 36.9% | 11.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 34.6% | 16.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 37.6% | 16.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 34.0% | 14.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.61 | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.16 | $0.47 | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.72 | $-0.14 | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.65 | $0.37 | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.46 | $0.38 | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.23 | $0.99 | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.30 | $1.04 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.94 | $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 | $89.5B | $4.5B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $40.3B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $390.9B | $9.4B |
| Total Assets | $665.3B | $25.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.10× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $4.5B | ||
| Q4 25 | $89.5B | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $102.0B | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $94.6B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $79.6B | $3.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $71.6B | $3.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $78.4B | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $75.5B | $2.9B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $40.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $43.2B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $43.2B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $42.9B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $45.0B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $45.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $44.9B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $9.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | $390.9B | $8.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $363.1B | $7.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $343.5B | $7.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $321.9B | $6.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $302.7B | $5.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $287.7B | $5.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $268.5B | $4.5B |
| Q1 26 | — | $25.0B | ||
| Q4 25 | $665.3B | $23.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $636.4B | $23.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $619.0B | $22.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $562.6B | $21.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $533.9B | $20.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $523.0B | $20.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $512.2B | $17.9B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.10× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.12× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.13× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.13× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.15× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.16× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.17× | — |
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 | $35.8B | $554.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $5.9B | $384.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 7.2% | 14.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 36.8% | 6.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.93× | 1.28× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $77.4B | $3.6B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $554.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $35.8B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $45.1B | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $42.6B | $628.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $37.0B | $556.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $22.3B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $34.2B | $512.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $37.2B | $528.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | $384.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.9B | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $25.7B | $934.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $25.6B | $560.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $20.3B | $509.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.5B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $19.3B | $465.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $23.3B | $491.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | 14.8% | ||
| Q4 25 | 7.2% | 68.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 33.0% | 36.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.4% | 24.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 29.0% | 22.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.3% | 68.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 29.4% | 21.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 36.0% | 24.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | 6.6% | ||
| Q4 25 | 36.8% | 3.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 25.0% | 3.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 22.3% | 3.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 23.9% | 2.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.7% | 2.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.8% | 2.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.4% | 1.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | 1.28× | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.93× | 5.30× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.62× | 4.02× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.57× | 2.40× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.43× | 2.08× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.92× | 4.30× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.39× | 1.43× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.69× | 1.90× |
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
MSFT
| Microsoft Three Six Five Commercial Products And Cloud Services | $24.5B | 30% |
| Products | $16.5B | 20% |
| More Personal Computing | $14.3B | 18% |
| Gaming | $6.0B | 7% |
| Linked In Corporation | $5.1B | 6% |
| Windows And Devices | $4.5B | 6% |
| Search And News Advertising | $3.8B | 5% |
| Microsoft Three Six Five Consumer Products And Cloud Services | $2.3B | 3% |
| Dynamics Products And Cloud Services | $2.2B | 3% |
| Enterprise And Partner Services | $2.0B | 3% |
| Other Products And Services | $6.0M | 0% |
PANW
| Subscription | $1.4B | 54% |
| Support | $676.0M | 26% |
| Products | $514.0M | 20% |
