vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Charles River Laboratories (CRL) and Mettler Toledo (MTD), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Mettler Toledo is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $994.2M, roughly 1.1× Charles River Laboratories). Mettler Toledo runs the higher net margin — -27.8% vs 25.3%, a 53.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Mettler Toledo posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.1% vs -0.8%). Mettler Toledo produced more free cash flow last quarter ($184.1M vs $58.6M). Over the past eight quarters, Mettler Toledo's revenue compounded faster (10.5% CAGR vs -0.9%).
Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical and biotechnology contract research organisation (CRO) headquartered in Wilmington, Massachusetts, United States. Founded in 1947, the company provides preclinical and clinical laboratory services for the development of new drugs, vaccines, and medical devices.
Mettler Toledo, stylized in all caps, is a multinational supplier of precision instruments and services. The company focuses on laboratory, industrial, product inspection, and food retailing applications. Its products are used in research, quality control, and manufacturing processes in life sciences, food, chemical, and many other industries.
CRL vs MTD — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $994.2M | $1.1B |
| Net Profit | $-276.6M | $285.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | 59.8% |
| Operating Margin | -28.5% | 29.1% |
| Net Margin | -27.8% | 25.3% |
| Revenue YoY | -0.8% | 8.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -28.9% | 13.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-5.57 | $13.91 |
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 | $994.2M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.0B | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $983.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $984.2M | $883.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $954.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $946.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | $925.9M |
| Q4 25 | $-276.6M | $285.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $54.4M | $217.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $52.3M | $202.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.5M | $163.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-214.5M | $252.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $69.7M | $211.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $94.1M | $221.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $73.0M | $177.5M |
| Q4 25 | — | 59.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 59.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 59.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 59.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 61.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 34.6% | 60.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 34.5% | 59.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 34.1% | 59.2% |
| Q4 25 | -28.5% | 29.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.3% | 26.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.7% | 25.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.6% | 22.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -16.7% | 30.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.6% | 27.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.8% | 25.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 12.5% | 23.8% |
| Q4 25 | -27.8% | 25.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.4% | 21.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.1% | 20.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.6% | 18.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | -21.4% | 24.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.9% | 22.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.2% | 23.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.2% | 19.2% |
| Q4 25 | $-5.57 | $13.91 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.10 | $10.57 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.06 | $9.76 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.50 | $7.81 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-4.17 | $11.91 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.33 | $9.96 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.74 | $10.37 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.30 | $8.24 |
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 | $213.8M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.1B | $2.1B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.2B | $-23.6M |
| Total Assets | $7.1B | $3.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.68× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $213.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $207.1M | $69.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $182.8M | $61.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $229.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $194.6M | $59.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $210.2M | $71.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $179.2M | $70.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $327.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $2.1B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.3B | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.3B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.7B | — |
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $-23.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.4B | $-249.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.4B | $-258.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.2B | $-182.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.5B | $-126.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.8B | $-154.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.7B | $-152.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.6B | $-158.7M |
| Q4 25 | $7.1B | $3.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.5B | $3.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.6B | $3.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.6B | $3.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5B | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.0B | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9B | $3.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.2B | $3.3B |
| Q4 25 | 0.68× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.64× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.70× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.79× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.65× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.62× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.65× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.73× | — |
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 | $147.5M | $225.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $58.6M | $184.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 5.9% | 16.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 8.9% | 3.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 0.79× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $518.5M | $848.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $147.5M | $225.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $213.8M | $299.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $204.6M | $236.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $171.7M | $194.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $159.4M | $266.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $251.8M | $254.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $193.5M | $257.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $129.9M | $190.0M |
| Q4 25 | $58.6M | $184.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $178.2M | $274.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $169.3M | $212.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $112.4M | $177.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $83.7M | $224.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $213.1M | $233.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $154.0M | $233.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $50.7M | $172.6M |
| Q4 25 | 5.9% | 16.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.7% | 26.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 16.4% | 21.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.4% | 20.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.4% | 21.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 21.1% | 24.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.0% | 24.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.0% | 18.6% |
| Q4 25 | 8.9% | 3.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.5% | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.4% | 2.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.0% | 2.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.5% | 3.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.8% | 2.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.8% | 2.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.8% | 1.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.79× | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.93× | 1.38× | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.91× | 1.17× | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.74× | 1.19× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.06× | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.61× | 1.20× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.06× | 1.16× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.78× | 1.07× |
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
CRL
| Discovery And Safety Assessment Segment | $591.6M | 60% |
| Manufacturing Support Segment | $196.4M | 20% |
| Transferred At Point In Time | $108.0M | 11% |
| Transferred Over Time | $98.3M | 10% |
MTD
| Products | $857.0M | 76% |
| Services | $272.8M | 24% |
