vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Science Applications International Corp (SAIC) and TransUnion (TRU), 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× TransUnion). TransUnion runs the higher net margin — 4.2% vs 8.6%, a 4.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, TransUnion posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (13.0% vs 2.6%). TransUnion produced more free cash flow last quarter ($222.8M vs $120.0M). Over the past eight quarters, TransUnion's revenue compounded faster (7.1% CAGR vs 2.3%).
Science Applications International Corporation, Inc. (SAIC) is an American technology company headquartered in Reston, Virginia that provides government services and information technology support.
TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. TransUnion collects and aggregates information on over one billion individual consumers in over thirty countries including "200 million files profiling nearly every credit-active consumer in the United States". Its customers include over 65,000 businesses. Based in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion's 2014 revenue was US$1.3 billion. It is the smallest of the three largest credit agencies, along with Experian and Equifax.
SAIC vs TRU — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.9B | $1.2B |
| Net Profit | $78.0M | $101.1M |
| Gross Margin | 12.2% | — |
| Operating Margin | 6.9% | 17.4% |
| Net Margin | 4.2% | 8.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 2.6% | 13.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -3.7% | 52.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.69 | $0.52 |
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 | $1.9B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.0B | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7B | $1.0B |
| Q4 25 | $78.0M | $101.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $96.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $68.0M | $109.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $148.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $106.0M | $66.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $81.0M | $68.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $77.0M | $85.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $39.0M | $65.1M |
| 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 | 6.9% | 17.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 17.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.4% | 16.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 23.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.1% | 16.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.4% | 14.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.1% | 17.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.5% | 15.4% |
| Q4 25 | 4.2% | 8.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 8.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.6% | 9.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 13.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.4% | 6.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.5% | 6.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.2% | 8.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.2% | 6.4% |
| Q4 25 | $1.69 | $0.52 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.49 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.42 | $0.56 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.75 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.13 | $0.33 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.58 | $0.35 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.48 | $0.44 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.77 | $0.33 |
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 | $45.0M | $856.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.5B | $4.9B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.5B | $4.4B |
| Total Assets | $5.4B | $11.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.64× | 1.11× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $45.0M | $856.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $752.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $47.0M | $690.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $612.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $46.0M | $682.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $48.0M | $646.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $49.0M | $545.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $94.0M | $436.2M |
| Q4 25 | $2.5B | $4.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | $5.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.2B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.1B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $4.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $4.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.6B | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $4.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.8B | $4.1B |
| Q4 25 | $5.4B | $11.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $11.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.2B | $11.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $10.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.3B | $11.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.3B | $11.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.3B | $11.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.3B | $11.0B |
| Q4 25 | 1.64× | 1.11× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.52× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.34× | 1.20× | ||
| 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 | $129.0M | $319.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $120.0M | $222.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 6.4% | 19.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.5% | 8.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.65× | 3.16× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $478.0M | $661.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $129.0M | $319.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $324.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $100.0M | $291.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $52.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $143.0M | $254.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $138.0M | $229.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $98.0M | $295.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $63.0M | $54.0M |
| Q4 25 | $120.0M | $222.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $240.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $92.0M | $214.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-15.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $134.0M | $136.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $132.0M | $161.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $92.0M | $226.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $52.0M | $-8.4M |
| Q4 25 | 6.4% | 19.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 20.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.9% | 18.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -1.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.8% | 13.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.3% | 14.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.0% | 21.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.0% | -0.8% |
| Q4 25 | 0.5% | 8.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 7.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.4% | 6.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 6.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.5% | 11.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.3% | 6.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.3% | 6.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.6% | 6.1% |
| Q4 25 | 1.65× | 3.16× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.36× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.47× | 2.66× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.35× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.35× | 3.83× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.70× | 3.37× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.27× | 3.47× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.62× | 0.83× |
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
SAIC
| Prime Contractor | $1.3B | 71% |
| Civilian | $427.0M | 23% |
| Subcontractor | $116.0M | 6% |
| Commercial State And Local Agencies | $7.0M | 0% |
TRU
Segment breakdown not available.
