vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Parker Hannifin (PH) and Snap-on (SNA), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Parker Hannifin is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($5.2B vs $1.2B, roughly 4.2× Snap-on). On growth, Parker Hannifin posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.1% vs 2.7%). Parker Hannifin produced more free cash flow last quarter ($768.0M vs $254.6M). Over the past eight quarters, Snap-on's revenue compounded faster (2.0% CAGR vs 1.0%).
Parker-Hannifin Corporation, originally Parker Appliance Company, usually referred to as just Parker, is an American corporation specializing in motion and control technologies. Its corporate headquarters are in Mayfield Heights, Ohio, in Greater Cleveland.
Snap-on Incorporated is an American designer, manufacturer, and marketer of high-end tools and equipment for professional use in the transportation industry, including the automotive, heavy duty, equipment, marine, aviation, and railroad industries. Headquartered in Kenosha, Wisconsin, since 1930, Snap-on also distributes lower-end tools under the brand name Blue-Point. Their primary competitors include Matco, Mac Tools, and Cornwell Tools.
PH vs SNA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q4 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $5.2B | $1.2B |
| Net Profit | — | $260.7M |
| Gross Margin | 37.3% | — |
| Operating Margin | 22.8% | 27.8% |
| Net Margin | — | 21.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 9.1% | 2.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 1.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $6.60 | $4.94 |
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 | $5.2B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.2B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.0B | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.7B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.9B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.2B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.1B | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | — | $260.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $265.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $923.6M | $250.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $961.2M | $240.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $948.6M | $258.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $698.5M | $251.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $785.1M | $271.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $726.7M | $263.5M |
| Q4 25 | 37.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 37.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 37.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 36.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 36.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 36.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 35.9% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 35.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | 22.8% | 27.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 23.3% | 29.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 22.7% | 28.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.3% | 27.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 20.9% | 27.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 21.6% | 28.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.1% | 29.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 20.4% | 28.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 21.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 22.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.6% | 21.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.4% | 21.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 20.0% | 21.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.2% | 22.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.1% | 23.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 14.3% | 22.4% |
| Q4 25 | $6.60 | $4.94 | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.29 | $5.02 | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.16 | $4.72 | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.37 | $4.51 | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.25 | $4.83 | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.34 | $4.70 | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.06 | $5.07 | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.56 | $4.91 |
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 | $427.0M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $7.5B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $14.3B | — |
| Total Assets | $30.5B | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.52× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $427.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $473.0M | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $467.0M | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $408.7M | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $395.5M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $371.1M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $422.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $415.5M | $1.1B |
| Q4 25 | $7.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.5B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.5B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.4B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.7B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.7B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.2B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.3B | — |
| Q4 25 | $14.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.8B | $5.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.7B | $5.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.4B | $5.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.1B | $5.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.9B | $5.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.1B | $5.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.6B | $5.1B |
| Q4 25 | $30.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $30.7B | $8.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $29.5B | $8.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $28.9B | $8.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $28.3B | $7.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $29.6B | $8.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $29.3B | $7.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $29.6B | $7.7B |
| Q4 25 | 0.52× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.54× | 0.21× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.55× | 0.21× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.55× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.51× | 0.22× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.52× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.59× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.63× | — |
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 | $862.0M | $268.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $768.0M | $254.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 14.8% | 20.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.8% | 1.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 1.03× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $3.3B | $1.0B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $862.0M | $268.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $782.0M | $277.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $237.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $630.0M | $298.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $934.8M | $293.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $744.0M | $274.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $301.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $795.1M | $348.7M |
| Q4 25 | $768.0M | $254.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $693.0M | $258.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $217.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $542.4M | $275.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $813.6M | $275.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $648.7M | $253.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $277.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $715.9M | $326.9M |
| Q4 25 | 14.8% | 20.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.6% | 21.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 25.5% | 18.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.9% | 24.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.2% | 23.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.2% | 22.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.6% | 23.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 14.1% | 27.8% |
| Q4 25 | 1.8% | 1.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.8% | 1.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.5% | 1.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.8% | 2.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.6% | 1.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.9% | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.3% | 2.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.6% | 1.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.03× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.05× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.59× | 0.95× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.66× | 1.24× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.99× | 1.14× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.07× | 1.09× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.58× | 1.11× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.09× | 1.32× |
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
PH
| Filtration And Engineered Materials | $1.5B | 28% |
| Other | $1.1B | 22% |
| Motion Systems | $893.0M | 17% |
| Commercial Aftermarket | $619.0M | 12% |
| Commercial Original Equipment Manufacturer | $561.0M | 11% |
| Defense Original Equipment Manufacturer | $305.0M | 6% |
| Defense Aftermarket | $221.0M | 4% |
SNA
Segment breakdown not available.
