vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of NCR Atleos Corp (NATL) and Science Applications International Corp (SAIC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Science Applications International Corp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.9B vs $1.2B, roughly 1.6× NCR Atleos Corp). NCR Atleos Corp runs the higher net margin — 7.2% vs 4.2%, a 3.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, NCR Atleos Corp posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (4.0% vs 2.6%). NCR Atleos Corp produced more free cash flow last quarter ($194.0M vs $120.0M). Over the past eight quarters, NCR Atleos Corp's revenue compounded faster (4.9% CAGR vs 2.3%).
NCR Voyix Corporation, previously known as NCR Corporation and National Cash Register, is a global software, consulting and technology company providing several professional services and electronic products. It manufactured self-service kiosks, point-of-sale terminals, automated teller machines, check processing systems, and barcode scanners.
Science Applications International Corporation, Inc. (SAIC) is an American technology company headquartered in Reston, Virginia that provides government services and information technology support.
NATL vs SAIC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.2B | $1.9B |
| Net Profit | $83.0M | $78.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | 12.2% |
| Operating Margin | 13.5% | 6.9% |
| Net Margin | 7.2% | 4.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 4.0% | 2.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | 102.4% | -3.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.09 | $1.69 |
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 | $1.2B | $1.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $979.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | $1.7B |
| Q4 25 | $83.0M | $78.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $26.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $39.0M | $68.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $41.0M | $106.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $21.0M | $81.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $27.0M | $77.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-9.0M | $39.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 11.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 12.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 11.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 11.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 11.1% |
| Q4 25 | 13.5% | 6.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.8% | 6.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.4% | 8.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.6% | 7.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.8% | 7.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.5% | 4.5% |
| Q4 25 | 7.2% | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.5% | 3.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.7% | 5.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.0% | 4.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | 4.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.9% | 2.2% |
| Q4 25 | $1.09 | $1.69 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.34 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.52 | $1.42 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.19 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.56 | $2.13 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.28 | $1.58 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.37 | $1.48 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.13 | $0.77 |
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 | $456.0M | $45.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.7B | $2.5B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $403.0M | $1.5B |
| Total Assets | $5.7B | $5.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 6.63× | 1.64× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $456.0M | $45.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $412.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $357.0M | $47.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $352.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $419.0M | $46.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $395.0M | $48.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $374.0M | $49.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $343.0M | $94.0M |
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.8B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.8B | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.9B | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.1B |
| Q4 25 | $403.0M | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $330.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $350.0M | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $275.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $219.0M | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $264.0M | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $250.0M | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $283.0M | $1.8B |
| Q4 25 | $5.7B | $5.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.7B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.8B | $5.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.7B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.5B | $5.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.7B | $5.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.8B | $5.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.8B | $5.3B |
| Q4 25 | 6.63× | 1.64× | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.45× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.05× | 1.52× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.05× | 1.34× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.33× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.18× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.18× |
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 | $231.0M | $129.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $194.0M | $120.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 16.8% | 6.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 3.2% | 0.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 2.78× | 1.65× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $239.0M | $478.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $231.0M | $129.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $25.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-23.0M | $100.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $123.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $80.0M | $143.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $107.0M | $138.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.0M | $98.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $148.0M | $63.0M |
| Q4 25 | $194.0M | $120.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-44.0M | $92.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $94.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $62.0M | $134.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $85.0M | $132.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-14.0M | $92.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $124.0M | $52.0M |
| Q4 25 | 16.8% | 6.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -0.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -4.0% | 4.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.6% | 6.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.9% | 7.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.3% | 5.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.9% | 3.0% |
| Q4 25 | 3.2% | 0.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.9% | 0.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.6% | 0.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.1% | 0.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.1% | 0.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.3% | 0.6% |
| Q4 25 | 2.78× | 1.65× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.96× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.59× | 1.47× | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.79× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.95× | 1.35× | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.10× | 1.70× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.33× | 1.27× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.62× |
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
NATL
| Services | $848.0M | 74% |
| APJ | $136.0M | 12% |
| Americas Excluding United States | $135.0M | 12% |
| TT | $44.0M | 4% |
SAIC
| Prime Contractor | $1.3B | 71% |
| Civilian | $427.0M | 23% |
| Subcontractor | $116.0M | 6% |
| Commercial State And Local Agencies | $7.0M | 0% |
