vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of FLUOR CORP (FLR) and LGI Homes, Inc. (LGIH), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
FLUOR CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.2B vs $474.0M, roughly 8.8× LGI Homes, Inc.). LGI Homes, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -37.7% vs 3.7%, a 41.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, FLUOR CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-2.0% vs -15.0%). Over the past eight quarters, LGI Homes, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (10.1% CAGR vs 5.7%).
Fluor Corporation is an American engineering and construction firm, headquartered in Irving, Texas. It is a holding company that provides services through its subsidiaries in three main areas: oil and gas, industrial and infrastructure, government and power. It is the largest publicly traded engineering and construction company in the Fortune 500 rankings and is listed as 265th overall.
LGI Homes is a Texas-based builder of new construction homes and housing developments, with its development projects mostly focused in the southwestern region of the United States. According to Builder Magazine, LGI Homes is the tenth largest home builder in the United States. 2013, the company announced the pricing of its initial public offering: 9,000,000 shares at $11 per share. 2019, LGI Homes closed 7,690 homes, which was an 18.1% increase over 2018. Home sales revenue in 2019 was $1.8 b...
FLR vs LGIH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $4.2B | $474.0M |
| Net Profit | $-1.6B | $17.3M |
| Gross Margin | 3.2% | 17.7% |
| Operating Margin | 1.3% | 3.9% |
| Net Margin | -37.7% | 3.7% |
| Revenue YoY | -2.0% | -15.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -184.4% | -66.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-9.40 | $0.74 |
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 | $4.2B | $474.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.4B | $396.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.0B | $483.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.0B | $351.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.3B | $557.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.1B | $651.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $602.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.7B | $390.9M |
| Q4 25 | $-1.6B | $17.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-697.0M | $19.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.5B | $31.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-241.0M | $4.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.9B | $50.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $54.0M | $69.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $169.0M | $58.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $59.0M | $17.1M |
| Q4 25 | 3.2% | 17.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -13.3% | 21.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.4% | 22.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.5% | 21.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.9% | 22.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.1% | 25.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.2% | 25.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.7% | 23.4% |
| Q4 25 | 1.3% | 3.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | -14.7% | 5.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.7% | 8.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.3% | 0.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.4% | 8.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.2% | 12.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.2% | 11.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.4% | 4.8% |
| Q4 25 | -37.7% | 3.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -20.7% | 5.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 61.8% | 6.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -6.1% | 1.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 43.7% | 9.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.3% | 10.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.0% | 9.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.6% | 4.4% |
| Q4 25 | $-9.40 | $0.74 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-4.30 | $0.85 | ||
| Q2 25 | $14.81 | $1.36 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.42 | $0.17 | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.68 | $2.15 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.31 | $2.95 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.97 | $2.48 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.34 | $0.72 |
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 | $2.2B | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.7B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.2B | $2.1B |
| Total Assets | $8.2B | $3.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.79× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $2.2B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.8B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $53.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.7B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.4B | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.2B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.9B | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.6B | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.9B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.3B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.1B | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.0B | $1.9B |
| Q4 25 | $8.2B | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.5B | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.8B | $4.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.4B | $3.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.1B | $3.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.1B | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.8B | $3.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.7B | $3.5B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.79× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.73× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $-366.0M | $86.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-378.0M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -9.1% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.3% | 0.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 5.01× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-437.0M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-366.0M | $86.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $286.0M | $-13.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-21.0M | $-86.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-286.0M | $-127.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $327.0M | $57.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $330.0M | $-17.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $282.0M | $-83.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-111.0M | $-99.5M |
| Q4 25 | $-378.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $273.0M | $-13.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-35.0M | $-86.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-297.0M | $-128.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $296.0M | $56.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $279.0M | $-17.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $234.0M | $-83.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-145.0M | $-100.5M |
| Q4 25 | -9.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.1% | -3.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.9% | -17.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.5% | -36.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.9% | 10.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.8% | -2.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.5% | -13.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -3.9% | -25.7% |
| Q4 25 | 0.3% | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.4% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.3% | 0.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.7% | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.2% | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.1% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.9% | 0.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 5.01× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -0.67× | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.01× | -2.74× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -31.83× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.18× | 1.12× | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.11× | -0.26× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.67× | -1.43× | ||
| Q1 24 | -1.88× | -5.83× |
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
FLR
| Urban Solutions Segment | $2.6B | 63% |
| Energy Solutions Segment | $943.0M | 23% |
| Mission Solutions Segment | $600.0M | 14% |
LGIH
| West Reportable Segment | $128.2M | 27% |
| Southeast Reportable Segment | $118.9M | 25% |
| Central Reportable Segment | $105.8M | 22% |
| Florida Reportable Segment | $69.2M | 15% |
| Northwest Reportable Segment | $51.8M | 11% |
