vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC (GVA) and PARSONS CORP (PSN), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
PARSONS CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.6B vs $1.2B, roughly 1.4× GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC). GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC runs the higher net margin — 4.5% vs 3.5%, a 1.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (19.2% vs -7.5%). PARSONS CORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($135.6M vs $128.8M). Over the past eight quarters, GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC's revenue compounded faster (31.7% CAGR vs 2.2%).
Granite Construction Inc. is a civil construction company and aggregate producer, a member of the S&P 600 Index based and founded in Watsonville, California, and is the parent corporation of Granite Construction Company. The company is both a heavy civil construction contractor and construction aggregate manufacturer, owning or leasing quarries in several Western states for extracting mostly sands, gravel, and crushed stone products. The company was under investigation from the SEC from 2019 ...
Parsons Corporation is an American multinational technology-focused defense, intelligence, and infrastructure engineering firm. Founded in 1944, Parsons is headquartered in Chantilly, Virginia, and serves both government and private sector organizations in more than 30 countries.
GVA vs PSN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.2B | $1.6B |
| Net Profit | $52.0M | $55.6M |
| Gross Margin | 14.4% | 23.0% |
| Operating Margin | 6.4% | 6.6% |
| Net Margin | 4.5% | 3.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 19.2% | -7.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | 25.4% | -72.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.23 | $0.51 |
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 | $1.2B | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $699.5M | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $977.3M | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $672.3M | $1.5B |
| Q4 25 | $52.0M | $55.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $102.9M | $64.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $71.7M | $55.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-33.7M | $66.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $41.5M | $201.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $79.0M | $72.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $36.9M | $69.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-31.0M | $-107.4M |
| Q4 25 | 14.4% | 23.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.2% | 22.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.7% | 22.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.0% | 22.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 15.4% | 21.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.9% | 19.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.2% | 21.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.1% | 21.2% |
| Q4 25 | 6.4% | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.0% | 6.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.2% | 6.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -5.7% | 7.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.2% | 5.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.2% | 6.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.9% | 6.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -6.4% | 6.6% |
| Q4 25 | 4.5% | 3.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.2% | 4.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.4% | 3.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.8% | 4.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.2% | 11.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.2% | 4.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.4% | 4.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -4.6% | -7.0% |
| Q4 25 | $1.23 | $0.51 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.98 | $0.59 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.42 | $0.50 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.77 | $0.60 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.99 | $1.85 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.57 | $0.65 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.76 | $0.63 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.70 | $-1.01 |
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 | $600.2M | $466.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $1.3B | $1.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.2B | $2.6B |
| Total Assets | $4.0B | $5.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.14× | 0.47× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $600.2M | $466.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $547.2M | $422.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $385.3M | $411.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $422.8M | $269.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $585.6M | $453.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $472.4M | $558.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $377.2M | $528.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $337.3M | $423.1M |
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $740.4M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $739.7M | $785.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $739.0M | $784.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $738.6M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $738.9M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $553.2M | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $993.5M | $2.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $2.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $931.7M | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $946.5M | $2.1B |
| Q4 25 | $4.0B | $5.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.1B | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.1B | $5.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.9B | $5.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $5.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.1B | $5.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9B | $5.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.6B | $5.1B |
| Q4 25 | 1.14× | 0.47× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.16× | 0.48× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.70× | 0.49× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.74× | 0.32× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.73× | 0.32× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.73× | 0.49× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.79× | 0.56× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.58× | 0.58× |
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 | $179.3M | $167.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $128.8M | $135.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 11.0% | 8.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 4.3% | 2.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 3.45× | 3.01× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $330.6M | $410.4M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $179.3M | $167.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $284.2M | $162.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8M | $159.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.6M | $-11.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $172.8M | $126.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $261.5M | $299.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-2.0M | $161.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $24.1M | $-63.4M |
| Q4 25 | $128.8M | $135.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $257.5M | $149.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-27.0M | $150.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-28.6M | $-25.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $144.6M | $108.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $220.2M | $287.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-41.0M | $152.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.8M | $-72.9M |
| Q4 25 | 11.0% | 8.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.0% | 9.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.4% | 9.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.1% | -1.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.8% | 6.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 17.3% | 15.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.8% | 9.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.6% | -4.7% |
| Q4 25 | 4.3% | 2.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.9% | 0.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.6% | 0.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.6% | 0.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.9% | 1.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.6% | 0.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.1% | 0.6% |
| Q4 25 | 3.45× | 3.01× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.76× | 2.54× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.02× | 2.89× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -0.18× | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.17× | 0.63× | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.31× | 4.16× | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.05× | 2.33× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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
GVA
| Public | $680.2M | 58% |
| Private | $260.1M | 22% |
| Asphalt | $116.9M | 10% |
| Aggregates | $107.9M | 9% |
| Collaborative Arrangement | $7.0M | 1% |
| Performance Obligations | $3.5M | 0% |
PSN
| Unconsolidated Joint Ventures | $582.1M | 36% |
| Defense And Intelligence | $502.8M | 31% |
| Engineered Systems | $281.4M | 18% |
| Consolidated Joint Ventures | $216.7M | 14% |
| TRS Group Inc | $9.4M | 1% |
