vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of FLEX LTD. (FLEX) and KLA Corporation (KLAC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
FLEX LTD. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($7.1B vs $3.3B, roughly 2.1× KLA Corporation). KLA Corporation runs the higher net margin — 3.4% vs 34.7%, a 31.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, FLEX LTD. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.7% vs 7.2%). KLA Corporation produced more free cash flow last quarter ($1.3B vs $272.0M). Over the past eight quarters, FLEX LTD.'s revenue compounded faster (25.2% CAGR vs 18.2%).
Flex Ltd. is a Singaporean–American multinational manufacturing company. It is the third largest global electronics manufacturing services (EMS), original design manufacturer (ODM) company by revenue, behind only Pegatron for what concerns original equipment manufacturers. Flex's U.S. corporate headquarters are located in Austin, Texas. The company has manufacturing operations in over 30 countries, totaling about 172,000 employees.
KLA Corporation is an American company based in Milpitas, California that makes wafer fab equipment. It supplies process control and yield management systems for the semiconductor industry and other related nanoelectronics industries. The company's products and services are intended for all phases of wafer, reticle, integrated circuit (IC) and packaging production, from research and development to final volume manufacturing.
FLEX vs KLAC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2026 vs Q2 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $7.1B | $3.3B |
| Net Profit | $239.0M | $1.1B |
| Gross Margin | 9.6% | 61.4% |
| Operating Margin | 5.5% | — |
| Net Margin | 3.4% | 34.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.7% | 7.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | -9.1% | 39.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.64 | $8.68 |
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 | $7.1B | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.8B | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.6B | $3.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.4B | $3.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.6B | $3.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.5B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.3B | $2.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.5B | $2.4B |
| Q4 25 | $239.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $199.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $192.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $222.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $263.0M | $824.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $214.0M | $945.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $139.0M | $836.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $395.0M | $601.5M |
| Q4 25 | 9.6% | 61.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.0% | 61.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.7% | 62.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.8% | 61.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.1% | 60.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.1% | 59.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.5% | 60.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.6% | 57.9% |
| Q4 25 | 5.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.7% | 41.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.8% | 41.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.1% | 31.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.5% | 38.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.7% | 36.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -3.6% | 29.7% |
| Q4 25 | 3.4% | 34.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | 34.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.9% | 37.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.5% | 35.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 26.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.3% | 33.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.2% | 32.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.8% | 25.5% |
| Q4 25 | $0.64 | $8.68 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.52 | $8.47 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.50 | $9.04 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.56 | $8.16 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.67 | $6.16 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.54 | $7.01 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.34 | $6.16 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.91 | $4.43 |
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 | $3.1B | $2.5B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $4.4B | $5.9B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.1B | $5.5B |
| Total Assets | $20.8B | $16.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.87× | 1.08× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $3.1B | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.2B | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.3B | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.3B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.6B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.2B | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.5B | $1.8B |
| Q4 25 | $4.4B | $5.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.7B | $5.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.7B | $5.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.7B | $5.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7B | $5.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.7B | $5.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.2B | $5.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.3B | $5.9B |
| Q4 25 | $5.1B | $5.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.0B | $5.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.1B | $4.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.0B | $4.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.0B | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.0B | $3.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.0B | $3.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.3B | $3.1B |
| Q4 25 | $20.8B | $16.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $19.5B | $16.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $19.1B | $16.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $18.4B | $15.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $18.3B | $15.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.6B | $15.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $17.7B | $15.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.3B | $15.0B |
| Q4 25 | 0.87× | 1.08× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.73× | 1.18× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.72× | 1.25× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.74× | 1.47× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.74× | 1.64× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.74× | 1.65× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.64× | 1.75× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.61× | 1.90× |
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 | $420.0M | $1.4B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $272.0M | $1.3B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 3.9% | 38.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.1% | 3.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.76× | 1.19× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $1.2B | $4.4B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $420.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $453.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $399.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $433.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $413.0M | $849.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $319.0M | $995.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $340.0M | $892.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $679.0M | $910.0M |
| Q4 25 | $272.0M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $303.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $266.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $321.0M | $990.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $301.0M | $757.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $216.0M | $934.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $229.0M | $831.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $598.0M | $838.2M |
| Q4 25 | 3.9% | 38.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.5% | 33.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.0% | 33.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.0% | 32.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.6% | 24.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.3% | 32.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.6% | 32.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 13.3% | 35.5% |
| Q4 25 | 2.1% | 3.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.2% | 3.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.0% | 3.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.8% | 2.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.7% | 3.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.6% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.8% | 2.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.8% | 3.0% |
| Q4 25 | 1.76× | 1.19× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.28× | 1.04× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.08× | 0.97× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.95× | 0.99× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.57× | 1.03× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.49× | 1.05× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.45× | 1.07× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.72× | 1.51× |
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
FLEX
| Flex Reliability Solutions FRS | $3.2B | 46% |
| Transferred At Point In Time | $2.7B | 38% |
| Transferred Over Time | $1.1B | 16% |
KLAC
| Wafer Inspection | $1.6B | 48% |
| Services | $786.1M | 24% |
| Patterning | $696.2M | 21% |
| Specialty Semiconductor Process | $121.6M | 4% |
| PCB And Component Inspection | $80.3M | 2% |
| Other Revenue | $40.2M | 1% |
