vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Amphenol (APH) and IBM (IBM), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
IBM is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($19.7B vs $6.4B, roughly 3.1× Amphenol). IBM runs the higher net margin — 18.6% vs 28.4%, a 9.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Amphenol posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (49.1% vs 12.2%). IBM produced more free cash flow last quarter ($3.7B vs $1.5B). Over the past eight quarters, Amphenol's revenue compounded faster (40.6% CAGR vs 16.7%).
Amphenol Corporation is an American producer of electronic and fiber optic connectors, cable and interconnect systems such as coaxial cables. Amphenol is a portmanteau from the corporation's original name, American Phenolic Corp.
International Business Machines Corporation, doing business as IBM, is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Armonk, New York, and present in over 175 countries. It is a publicly traded company and one of the 30 companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. IBM is the largest industrial research organization in the world, with 19 research facilities across a dozen countries; for 29 consecutive years, from 1993 to 2021, it held the record for most annual U.S.
APH vs IBM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $6.4B | $19.7B |
| Net Profit | $1.2B | $5.6B |
| Gross Margin | 38.2% | 60.6% |
| Operating Margin | 26.8% | 21.0% |
| Net Margin | 18.6% | 28.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 49.1% | 12.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | 60.2% | 92.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.93 | $5.90 |
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 | $6.4B | $19.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.2B | $16.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.7B | $17.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.8B | $14.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.3B | $17.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.0B | $15.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.6B | $15.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.3B | $14.5B |
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $5.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $737.8M | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $746.1M | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $604.4M | $-330.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $524.8M | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $548.7M | $1.6B |
| Q4 25 | 38.2% | 60.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 38.1% | 57.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 36.3% | 58.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 34.2% | 55.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 34.3% | 59.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 33.6% | 56.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 33.6% | 56.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 33.4% | 53.5% |
| Q4 25 | 26.8% | 21.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 27.5% | 14.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 25.1% | 15.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 21.3% | 8.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.1% | 18.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.3% | -5.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.4% | 14.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 21.0% | 7.4% |
| Q4 25 | 18.6% | 28.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.1% | 10.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.3% | 12.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.3% | 7.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.3% | 16.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.0% | -2.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.5% | 11.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.9% | 11.1% |
| Q4 25 | $0.93 | $5.90 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.97 | $1.84 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.86 | $2.31 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.58 | $1.12 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.16 | $3.11 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.48 | $-0.36 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.41 | $1.96 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.87 | $1.72 |
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 | $11.4B | $13.6B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $14.6B | $54.8B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $13.4B | $32.6B |
| Total Assets | $36.2B | $151.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.09× | 1.68× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $11.4B | $13.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.9B | $11.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2B | $11.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.7B | $11.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.3B | $13.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.6B | $13.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3B | $12.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.0B | $14.6B |
| Q4 25 | $14.6B | $54.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.1B | $55.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.1B | $55.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.8B | $56.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.5B | $49.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.1B | $53.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.0B | $52.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.6B | $54.0B |
| Q4 25 | $13.4B | $32.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.5B | $27.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.5B | $27.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.3B | $26.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.8B | $27.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.5B | $24.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.0B | $24.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.7B | $23.3B |
| Q4 25 | $36.2B | $151.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $27.1B | $146.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $25.7B | $148.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $22.9B | $145.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $21.4B | $137.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $19.6B | $134.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.6B | $133.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $16.7B | $137.2B |
| Q4 25 | 1.09× | 1.68× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.57× | 1.98× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.62× | 2.01× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.66× | 2.10× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.66× | 1.83× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.54× | 2.17× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.56× | 2.20× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.41× | 2.32× |
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 | $1.7B | $4.0B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $1.5B | $3.7B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 22.8% | 18.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 3.9% | 1.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.44× | 0.72× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $4.4B | $12.1B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.7B | $4.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $764.9M | $4.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $847.1M | $4.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $704.0M | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $664.1M | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $599.5M | $4.2B |
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $3.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $576.3M | $4.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $647.3M | $4.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $474.0M | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $522.8M | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $505.2M | $3.9B |
| Q4 25 | 22.8% | 18.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.6% | 17.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.8% | 8.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.0% | 28.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 15.0% | 22.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.7% | 17.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.5% | 11.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 15.5% | 27.2% |
| Q4 25 | 3.9% | 1.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.2% | 1.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.3% | 1.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | 1.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.6% | 1.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.7% | 1.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.9% | 1.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.9% | 1.7% |
| Q4 25 | 1.44× | 0.72× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.18× | 1.77× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.30× | 0.78× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.04× | 4.14× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.14× | 1.49× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.16× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.27× | 1.13× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.09× | 2.60× |
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
APH
| Communications Solutions Segment | $3.5B | 54% |
| Harsh Environment Solutions Segment | $1.7B | 26% |
| Sales Channel Through Intermediary | $1.4B | 21% |
IBM
Segment breakdown not available.
