vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Baker Hughes (BKR) and EQUINOR ASA (EQNR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
EQUINOR ASA is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($26.0B vs $7.4B, roughly 3.5× Baker Hughes). Baker Hughes runs the higher net margin — 11.9% vs -0.8%, a 12.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, EQUINOR ASA posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (2.4% vs 0.3%).
Baker Hughes Company is an American global energy technology company co-headquartered in Houston, Texas and London, UK. As one of the world's largest oil field services, industrial and energy technology companies, it provides products and services to the oil and gas industry for exploration and production, as well as other energy and industrial applications. It operates in over 120 countries, with facilities in Australia, Brazil, Singapore, Malaysia, India, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Germany, ...
Equinor ASA is a Norwegian multinational energy company headquartered in Stavanger, Norway. It is primarily a petroleum company operating in 36 countries with additional investments in renewable energy and lithium mining. In the 2020 Forbes Global 2000, Equinor was ranked as the 169th-largest public company in the world. In 2023, the company was ranked 52nd in the same list. As of 2021, the company has 21,126 employees.
BKR vs EQNR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $7.4B | $26.0B |
| Net Profit | $876.0M | $-204.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | 46.6% |
| Operating Margin | 7.1% | 20.2% |
| Net Margin | 11.9% | -0.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 0.3% | 2.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | -25.7% | -108.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $-0.08 |
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 | $7.4B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.0B | $26.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.9B | $25.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.4B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.4B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.9B | $25.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.1B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.4B | — |
| Q4 25 | $876.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $609.0M | $-204.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $701.0M | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $402.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $766.0M | $2.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $579.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $455.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 46.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 49.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 48.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 7.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.7% | 20.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.0% | 22.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.5% | 27.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | 11.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.7% | -0.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.1% | 5.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.1% | 9.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.08 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.50 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.82 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | — | $8.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $5.4B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $18.8B | $40.6B |
| Total Assets | $40.9B | $135.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.29× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $8.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $6.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $5.4B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.0B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.0B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.0B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.9B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.9B | — |
| Q4 25 | $18.8B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.2B | $40.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.7B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $16.9B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $16.2B | $44.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $15.6B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $15.4B | — |
| Q4 25 | $40.9B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $39.2B | $135.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $38.7B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $38.1B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $38.4B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $37.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $36.7B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $37.1B | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.29× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.33× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.34× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.35× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.35× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.37× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.38× | — | ||
| 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 | $1.7B | $6.3B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $1.3B | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 17.4% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 5.1% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.90× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $2.5B | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $929.0M | $6.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $510.0M | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $709.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $6.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $348.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $784.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $634.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $209.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $409.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $837.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $710.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $56.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $451.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | 17.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 5.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.90× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.53× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.73× | 1.88× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.76× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.01× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.32× | 2.84× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.60× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.72× | — |
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
BKR
| Services | $2.4B | 33% |
| Production Solutions | $973.0M | 13% |
| Completions Intervention And Measurements | $945.0M | 13% |
| Gas Technology Services | $881.0M | 12% |
| Well Construction | $879.0M | 12% |
| Industrial Technology | $851.0M | 12% |
| Climate Technology Solutions | $229.0M | 3% |
| Other | $185.0M | 3% |
EQNR
Segment breakdown not available.
