vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AECOM (ACM) and IES Holdings, Inc. (IESC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
AECOM is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.8B vs $871.0M, roughly 4.4× IES Holdings, Inc.). IES Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 1.9% vs 10.5%, a 8.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, IES Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (16.2% vs 1.6%). AECOM produced more free cash flow last quarter ($41.9M vs $-18.9M). Over the past eight quarters, IES Holdings, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (11.1% CAGR vs -1.4%).
AECOM is an American multinational infrastructure consulting firm headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
IES Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Integrated Electrical Services, Inc., designs and installs integrated electrical and technology systems and provides infrastructure products and services to a variety of end markets, including data centers, residential housing, and commercial and industrial facilities.
ACM vs IESC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.8B | $871.0M |
| Net Profit | $74.5M | $91.8M |
| Gross Margin | 7.3% | 25.3% |
| Operating Margin | 5.8% | 11.2% |
| Net Margin | 1.9% | 10.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 1.6% | 16.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | -48.0% | 59.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.56 | $4.51 |
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 | $3.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $871.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.2B | $897.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.2B | $890.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.8B | $834.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.0B | $749.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.1B | $775.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $768.4M |
| Q1 26 | $74.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $91.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $120.4M | $102.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $131.0M | $79.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $143.4M | $72.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $167.0M | $57.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $172.5M | $65.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $134.3M | $66.6M |
| Q1 26 | 7.3% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 25.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.9% | 26.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.8% | 26.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.7% | 25.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.7% | 23.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.2% | 24.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.9% | 25.3% |
| Q1 26 | 5.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 11.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.7% | 11.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.0% | 12.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.8% | 11.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.9% | 10.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.8% | 9.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.5% | 11.7% |
| Q1 26 | 1.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 10.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | 11.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.1% | 8.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.8% | 8.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.2% | 7.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.2% | 8.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.2% | 8.7% |
| Q1 26 | $0.56 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $4.51 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.90 | $4.99 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.98 | $3.81 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.08 | $3.50 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.25 | $2.72 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.27 | $3.06 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.98 | $2.67 |
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 | $1.2B | $258.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.6B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.2B | $961.1M |
| Total Assets | $11.9B | $1.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.18× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $258.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | $231.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $168.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6B | $88.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $112.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.6B | $135.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $44.9M |
| Q1 26 | $2.6B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.5B | — |
| Q1 26 | $2.2B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $961.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5B | $884.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.5B | $781.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.3B | $705.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | $652.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.2B | $611.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.3B | $567.5M |
| Q1 26 | $11.9B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.2B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.3B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.8B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.8B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.0B | $1.2B |
| Q1 26 | 1.18× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.06× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.99× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.07× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.11× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.12× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.07× | — |
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 | $70.2M | $27.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $41.9M | $-18.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 1.1% | -2.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.7% | 5.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.94× | 0.30× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $616.0M | $175.9M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | $70.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $27.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $196.1M | $132.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $283.7M | $92.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $190.7M | $24.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $151.1M | $37.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $298.8M | $92.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $291.3M | $82.9M |
| Q1 26 | $41.9M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $-18.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $134.1M | $112.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $261.7M | $74.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $178.3M | $7.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $110.9M | $24.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $274.5M | $78.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $272.8M | $65.4M |
| Q1 26 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | -2.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | 12.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.3% | 8.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.7% | 0.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.8% | 3.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.7% | 10.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.6% | 8.5% |
| Q1 26 | 0.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 5.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.5% | 2.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.5% | 1.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.3% | 2.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.0% | 1.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.6% | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.4% | 2.3% |
| Q1 26 | 0.94× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.30× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.63× | 1.29× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.17× | 1.16× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.33× | 0.34× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.90× | 0.65× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.73× | 1.42× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.17× | 1.24× |
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
ACM
Segment breakdown not available.
IESC
| Communications | $351.9M | 40% |
| Single Family Electrical Contracts | $137.0M | 16% |
| Custom Engineered Solutions | $116.0M | 13% |
| Commercialand Industrial | $94.8M | 11% |
| Single Family Contracts Plumbing HVAC | $82.9M | 10% |
| Multi Familyand Other | $64.2M | 7% |
| Industrial Services | $24.2M | 3% |
