vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Fortive (FTV) and SPX Technologies, Inc. (SPXC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
SPX Technologies, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($637.3M vs $139.0M, roughly 4.6× Fortive). Fortive runs the higher net margin — 133.6% vs 12.2%, a 121.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, SPX Technologies, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (19.4% vs -91.4%). Fortive produced more free cash flow last quarter ($335.5M vs $126.7M). Over the past eight quarters, SPX Technologies, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (17.0% CAGR vs -69.8%).
Fortive Corporation is an American industrial technology conglomerate company headquartered in Everett, Washington. The company specializes in providing essential technologies for connected workflow solutions; designing, developing, manufacturing and distributing professional and engineered products, software and services. Their products and services are split into three strategic segments; Intelligent Operating Solutions, Precision Technologies, and Advanced Healthcare Solutions. As of Decem...
SPX Technologies, Inc. is an American manufacturing company, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. The company operates within four markets: heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), detection and measurement, power transmission and generation, and engineered solutions. Examples of SPX’s products include cooling towers and boilers, underground pipe and cable locators, power transformers, and heat exchangers. Brands include Waukesha, Dielectric, Genfare, Fahrenheat, Radiodetecti...
FTV vs SPXC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $139.0M | $637.3M |
| Net Profit | $185.7M | $77.9M |
| Gross Margin | — | 39.8% |
| Operating Margin | 75.4% | 15.7% |
| Net Margin | 133.6% | 12.2% |
| Revenue YoY | -91.4% | 19.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | -11.1% | 36.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.58 | $1.56 |
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 | $139.0M | $637.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.0B | $592.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $552.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | $482.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $533.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $483.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $501.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | $465.2M |
| Q4 25 | $185.7M | $77.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $55.0M | $62.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $166.6M | $52.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $171.9M | $51.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $208.8M | $57.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $221.6M | $50.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $195.1M | $44.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $207.4M | $49.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 39.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 63.2% | 40.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 59.0% | 41.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 59.8% | 40.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 60.3% | 40.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 60.0% | 40.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 59.8% | 40.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 59.3% | 39.3% |
| Q4 25 | 75.4% | 15.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.5% | 16.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.6% | 15.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.8% | 13.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 19.0% | 16.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.3% | 16.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.4% | 14.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 19.8% | 13.9% |
| Q4 25 | 133.6% | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.4% | 10.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.0% | 9.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.7% | 10.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.9% | 10.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.4% | 10.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.6% | 8.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 13.6% | 10.5% |
| Q4 25 | $0.58 | $1.56 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.16 | $1.28 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.49 | $1.10 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.50 | $1.09 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.60 | $1.21 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.63 | $1.06 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.55 | $0.94 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.58 | $1.05 |
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 | $375.5M | $364.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $3.2B | $496.7M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $6.5B | $2.2B |
| Total Assets | $11.7B | $3.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.50× | 0.22× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $375.5M | $364.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $430.8M | $229.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $132.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $892.1M | $177.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $813.3M | $156.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $811.3M | $124.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $644.1M | $128.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $704.6M | $100.5M |
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $496.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3B | $499.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.8B | $950.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.9B | $872.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7B | $577.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.9B | $665.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.8B | $509.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.9B | $516.6M |
| Q4 25 | $6.5B | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.5B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.4B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.6B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.5B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.5B | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $11.7B | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.9B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $18.2B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.1B | $3.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $17.0B | $2.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $17.5B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $17.3B | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.5B | $2.8B |
| Q4 25 | 0.50× | 0.22× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.51× | 0.23× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.46× | 0.62× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.38× | 0.60× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.36× | 0.42× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.37× | 0.49× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.36× | 0.40× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.38× | 0.42× |
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 | $365.9M | $195.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $335.5M | $126.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 241.4% | 19.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 21.9% | 10.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.97× | 2.51× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $978.1M | $241.2M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $365.9M | $195.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $164.4M | $106.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $311.2M | $42.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $241.7M | $-10.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $502.2M | $166.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $459.0M | $51.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $308.9M | $57.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $256.7M | $10.5M |
| Q4 25 | $335.5M | $126.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $153.1M | $96.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $274.5M | $34.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $215.0M | $-16.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $465.2M | $156.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $431.2M | $43.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $279.7M | $47.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $230.3M | $600.0K |
| Q4 25 | 241.4% | 19.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.9% | 16.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.1% | 6.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.6% | -3.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 28.7% | 29.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 28.1% | 9.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 18.0% | 9.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 15.1% | 0.1% |
| Q4 25 | 21.9% | 10.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.4% | 1.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.8% | 1.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.3% | 1.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.8% | 1.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 2.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.7% | 2.1% |
| Q4 25 | 1.97× | 2.51× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.99× | 1.70× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.87× | 0.81× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.41× | -0.21× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.41× | 2.92× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.07× | 1.02× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.58× | 1.30× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.24× | 0.21× |
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
FTV
| Services | $137.9M | 99% |
| Products | $1.1M | 1% |
SPXC
| Package And Process Cooling Equipment And Services And Engineered Air Movement And Handling Solutions | $258.5M | 41% |
| Detectionand Measurement Reportable Segment | $206.2M | 32% |
| CA | $57.7M | 9% |
| Kranze Technology Solutions Inc | $37.9M | 6% |
| GB | $32.0M | 5% |
| Other Foreign Countries | $28.6M | 4% |
| Other | $16.4M | 3% |
