vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Schlumberger (SLB) and TIGO ENERGY, INC. (TYGO). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
TIGO ENERGY, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($9.2B vs $8.7B, roughly 1.1× Schlumberger). Schlumberger produced more free cash flow last quarter ($103.0M vs $-39.3M).
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.
Tigo Energy is an American private corporation, headquartered in Los Gatos, California, United States. It provides products, technologies, software, and services to installers, distributors, and original equipment manufacturers within the photovoltaic industry. It specializes in module-level power optimizers and smart module power electronics.
SLB vs TYGO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2023
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $8.7B | $9.2B |
| Net Profit | $752.0M | — |
| Gross Margin | — | 0.0% |
| Operating Margin | — | — |
| Net Margin | 8.6% | — |
| Revenue YoY | 2.7% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | -5.6% | -1736.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $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 | $8.7B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $9.7B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.9B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.5B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.2B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.1B | — |
| Q1 26 | $752.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $824.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $739.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $797.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 9.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.5% | — |
| Q1 26 | 8.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 8.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.2% | — |
| Q1 26 | $0.50 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.53 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.50 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.74 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.58 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.77 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.83 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $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 | $3.4B | $31.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $9.7B | $50.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $27.4B | $62.8M |
| Total Assets | $19.3B | $127.8M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.35× | 0.80× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $3.4B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $571.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $511.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $961.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | — |
| Q1 26 | $9.7B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | $27.4B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $26.1B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $25.6B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.3B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $19.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $21.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $21.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $21.1B | — |
| Q1 26 | $19.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $54.9B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $55.1B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $48.8B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $49.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $48.9B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $49.8B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $49.4B | — |
| Q1 26 | 0.35× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
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 | — | $-37.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $103.0M | $-39.3M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 1.2% | -0.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 0.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $4.6B | $-70.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.0B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $660.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | — |
| Q1 26 | $103.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $771.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $262.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $973.0M | — |
| Q1 26 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 25.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 19.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 21.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.6% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 5.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.1% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 3.65× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.28× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.13× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.83× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.18× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.06× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.29× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
