vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Charles River Laboratories (CRL) and Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Thermo Fisher Scientific is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($12.2B vs $994.2M, roughly 12.3× Charles River Laboratories). Thermo Fisher Scientific runs the higher net margin — -27.8% vs 16.1%, a 44.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Thermo Fisher Scientific posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.2% vs -0.8%). Thermo Fisher Scientific produced more free cash flow last quarter ($3.0B vs $58.6M). Over the past eight quarters, Thermo Fisher Scientific's revenue compounded faster (8.7% 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.
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. is an American life science and clinical research company. It is a global supplier of analytical instruments, clinical development solutions, specialty diagnostics, laboratory, pharmaceutical and biotechnology services. Based in Waltham, Massachusetts, Thermo Fisher was formed through the merger of Thermo Electron and Fisher Scientific in 2006.
CRL vs TMO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $994.2M | $12.2B |
| Net Profit | $-276.6M | $2.0B |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -28.5% | 18.5% |
| Net Margin | -27.8% | 16.1% |
| Revenue YoY | -0.8% | 7.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | -28.9% | 8.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-5.57 | $5.21 |
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 | $12.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.0B | $11.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $10.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $984.2M | $10.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $11.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $10.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $10.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | $10.3B |
| Q4 25 | $-276.6M | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $54.4M | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $52.3M | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.5M | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $-214.5M | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $69.7M | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $94.1M | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $73.0M | $1.3B |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 34.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 34.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 34.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | -28.5% | 18.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.3% | 17.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.7% | 16.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.6% | 16.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -16.7% | 17.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.6% | 17.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.8% | 17.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 12.5% | 16.1% |
| Q4 25 | -27.8% | 16.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.4% | 14.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.1% | 14.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.6% | 14.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -21.4% | 16.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.9% | 15.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.2% | 14.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.2% | 12.9% |
| Q4 25 | $-5.57 | $5.21 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.10 | $4.27 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.06 | $4.28 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.50 | $3.98 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-4.17 | $4.78 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.33 | $4.25 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.74 | $4.04 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.30 | $3.46 |
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 | $10.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.1B | $35.9B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.2B | $53.4B |
| Total Assets | $7.1B | $110.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.68× | 0.67× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $213.8M | $10.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $207.1M | $3.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $182.8M | $6.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $229.4M | $5.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $194.6M | $5.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $210.2M | $6.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $179.2M | $8.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $327.0M | $7.3B |
| Q4 25 | $2.1B | $35.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $31.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.3B | $33.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.5B | $31.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | $29.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.3B | $31.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4B | $30.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.7B | $31.2B |
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $53.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.4B | $51.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.4B | $50.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.2B | $49.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.5B | $49.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.8B | $49.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.7B | $47.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.6B | $45.5B |
| Q4 25 | $7.1B | $110.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.5B | $103.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.6B | $101.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.6B | $99.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5B | $97.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.0B | $100.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9B | $98.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.2B | $97.1B |
| Q4 25 | 0.68× | 0.67× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.64× | 0.62× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.70× | 0.65× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.79× | 0.64× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.65× | 0.59× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.62× | 0.64× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.65× | 0.64× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.73× | 0.68× |
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 | $3.5B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $58.6M | $3.0B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 5.9% | 24.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 8.9% | 3.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 1.75× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $518.5M | $6.3B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $147.5M | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $213.8M | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $204.6M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $171.7M | $723.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $159.4M | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $251.8M | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $193.5M | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $129.9M | $1.3B |
| Q4 25 | $58.6M | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $178.2M | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $169.3M | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $112.4M | $361.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $83.7M | $2.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $213.1M | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $154.0M | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $50.7M | $904.0M |
| Q4 25 | 5.9% | 24.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.7% | 16.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 16.4% | 10.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.4% | 3.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.4% | 24.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 21.1% | 17.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.0% | 15.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.0% | 8.7% |
| Q4 25 | 8.9% | 3.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.5% | 3.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.4% | 2.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.0% | 3.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.5% | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.8% | 2.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.8% | 2.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.8% | 3.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.75× | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.93× | 1.39× | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.91× | 0.87× | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.74× | 0.48× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.80× | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.61× | 1.33× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.06× | 1.27× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.78× | 0.94× |
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% |
TMO
| Services | $5.0B | 41% |
| Biosciences | $1.1B | 9% |
| Bio Production | $967.0M | 8% |
| Chromatography And Mass Spectrometry | $962.0M | 8% |
| Electron Microscopy | $914.0M | 7% |
| Genetic Sciences | $794.0M | 7% |
| Laboratory Products | $630.0M | 5% |
| Other | $503.0M | 4% |
| Healthcare Market Channel | $463.0M | 4% |
| Chemical Analysis | $339.0M | 3% |
| Clinical Diagnostics | $293.0M | 2% |
| Microbiology | $172.0M | 1% |
| Transplant Diagnostics | $130.0M | 1% |
