vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Keysight Technologies (KEYS) and Trimble Inc. (TRMB), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Keysight Technologies is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.4B vs $901.2M, roughly 1.6× Trimble Inc.). Keysight Technologies runs the higher net margin — 16.4% vs 12.4%, a 4.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Keysight Technologies posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (10.3% vs -8.4%). Over the past eight quarters, Keysight Technologies's revenue compounded faster (6.2% CAGR vs -1.7%).
Keysight Technologies, Inc. is an American company that manufactures electronics test and measurement equipment and software. The company was formed as a spin-off of Agilent Technologies, which inherited and rebranded the test and measurement product lines developed and produced, from the late 1960s to the turn of the millennium, by Hewlett-Packard's Test and Measurement division. Its name is a portmanteau of key and insight.
Trimble Inc. is an American software, hardware, and services technology company that was founded in 1978. Its headquarters is in Westminster, Colorado. It is publicly traded on the Nasdaq and listed on the S&P 500. Trimble develops hardware and software for a variety of business sectors including architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC); surveying, mapping, and geomatics (geospatial); and transportation and logistics (T&L).
KEYS vs TRMB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.4B | $901.2M |
| Net Profit | $233.0M | $111.5M |
| Gross Margin | 61.2% | 68.9% |
| Operating Margin | 15.3% | 16.7% |
| Net Margin | 16.4% | 12.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 10.3% | -8.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | 419.2% | 23.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.35 | $0.46 |
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 | $1.4B | $901.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $875.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $840.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $983.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $875.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $870.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.3B | $953.3M |
| Q4 25 | $233.0M | $111.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $191.0M | $89.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $257.0M | $66.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $169.0M | $90.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-73.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $389.0M | $40.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $126.0M | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $172.0M | $57.2M |
| Q4 25 | 61.2% | 68.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 61.7% | 68.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 62.3% | 66.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 63.2% | 69.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 62.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 62.0% | 65.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 62.7% | 62.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 64.6% | 62.3% |
| Q4 25 | 15.3% | 16.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.3% | 14.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.8% | 11.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.8% | 17.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.8% | 13.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.6% | 7.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 17.6% | 11.5% |
| Q4 25 | 16.4% | 12.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.1% | 10.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.7% | 7.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.0% | 9.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -5.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 32.0% | 4.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.4% | 151.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 13.7% | 6.0% |
| Q4 25 | $1.35 | $0.46 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.10 | $0.37 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.49 | $0.27 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.97 | $0.36 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.41 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.22 | $0.16 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.72 | $5.34 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.98 | $0.23 |
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 | $1.9B | $232.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.5B | $1.4B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.9B | $5.8B |
| Total Assets | $11.3B | $9.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.43× | 0.24× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $232.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | $265.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.1B | $290.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.1B | $738.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.6B | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $944.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7B | $255.1M |
| Q4 25 | $2.5B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.8B | — |
| Q4 25 | $5.9B | $5.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.7B | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.5B | $5.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.2B | $5.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.2B | $5.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.9B | $5.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.8B | $4.3B |
| Q4 25 | $11.3B | $9.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.7B | $9.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.5B | $8.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.4B | $9.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.3B | $9.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.0B | $9.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.1B | $9.3B |
| Q4 25 | 0.43× | 0.24× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.45× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.46× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.35× | 0.24× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.35× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.34× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.37× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.38× | — |
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 | $225.0M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $187.0M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 13.2% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.7% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.97× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $1.3B | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $225.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $322.0M | $123.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $484.0M | $155.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $378.0M | $115.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $359.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $255.0M | $94.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $110.0M | $87.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $328.0M | $233.8M |
| Q4 25 | $187.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $291.0M | $116.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $457.0M | $149.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $346.0M | $109.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $321.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $222.0M | $88.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $74.0M | $73.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $281.0M | $227.0M |
| Q4 25 | 13.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 21.5% | 13.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 35.0% | 17.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 26.7% | 11.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 18.2% | 10.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.1% | 8.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 22.3% | 23.8% |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.3% | 0.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.1% | 0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.5% | 0.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.7% | 0.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.0% | 1.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.7% | 0.7% |
| Q4 25 | 0.97× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.69× | 1.39× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.88× | 2.33× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.24× | 1.28× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.66× | 2.34× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.87× | 0.07× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.91× | 4.09× |
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
KEYS
| Transferred At Point In Time | $790.0M | 56% |
| Electronicindustrial | $429.0M | 30% |
| Transferred Over Time | $200.0M | 14% |
TRMB
| Field Systems | $408.7M | 45% |
| Architects Engineers Construction And Owners | $358.5M | 40% |
| Transportation And Logistics | $134.0M | 15% |
