vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Founder Group Ltd (FGL) and Science Applications International Corp (SAIC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Science Applications International Corp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.9B vs $18, roughly 103666666.7× Founder Group Ltd). Science Applications International Corp runs the higher net margin — -9510122.2% vs 4.2%, a 9510126.4% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Founder Group (方正集团) is a major Chinese technology conglomerate that deals with information technology, pharmaceuticals, real estate, finance, and commodities trading. It is divided into five major industry groups, each covering a separate industry: PKU Founder IT Group (IT), PKU Healthcare Group, PKU Resource Group, Founder Financial (finance), and Founder Commodities. The group has been coping with bankruptcy since 2020, when the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court announced the recogn...
Science Applications International Corporation, Inc. (SAIC) is an American technology company headquartered in Reston, Virginia that provides government services and information technology support.
FGL vs SAIC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2025 vs Q3 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $18 | $1.9B |
| Net Profit | $-1.7M | $78.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | 12.2% |
| Operating Margin | -5234838.9% | 6.9% |
| Net Margin | -9510122.2% | 4.2% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 2.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -3.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $1.69 |
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 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $18 | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $1.8B |
| Q4 25 | — | $78.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.7M | $68.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $106.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $81.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $77.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $39.0M | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $93.0M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $247.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 12.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 11.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 12.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 11.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 11.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 11.1% | ||
| Q4 23 | — | 12.1% | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 12.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | 6.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -5234838.9% | 6.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 8.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 7.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 7.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 4.5% | ||
| Q4 23 | — | 7.5% | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 20.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -9510122.2% | 3.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 5.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 4.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 4.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.2% | ||
| Q4 23 | — | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 13.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.69 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.42 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.13 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.58 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.48 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0.77 | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $1.76 | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $4.56 |
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 | — | $45.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $2.5B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $4.1M | $1.5B |
| Total Assets | $29.0M | $5.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 1.64× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $45.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $47.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $46.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $48.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $49.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $94.0M | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $311.0M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $352.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $2.3B | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $2.3B |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.1M | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $1.8B |
| Q4 25 | — | $5.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $29.0M | $5.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $5.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $5.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $5.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $5.3B | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $5.7B | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $5.7B |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.64× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.52× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.34× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.33× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.18× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.18× | ||
| Q4 23 | — | 1.24× | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 1.24× |
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 | — | $129.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $120.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 6.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 0.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 1.65× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $478.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $129.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $100.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $143.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $138.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $98.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $63.0M | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $101.0M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $150.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $120.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $92.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $134.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $132.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $92.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $52.0M | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $97.0M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $144.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 6.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 4.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 6.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 7.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 5.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 3.0% | ||
| Q4 23 | — | 5.1% | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 8.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.6% | ||
| Q4 23 | — | 0.2% | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 0.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.65× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.47× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.35× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.70× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.27× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.62× | ||
| Q4 23 | — | 1.09× | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 0.61× |
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
FGL
Segment breakdown not available.
SAIC
| Prime Contractor | $1.3B | 71% |
| Civilian | $427.0M | 23% |
| Subcontractor | $116.0M | 6% |
| Commercial State And Local Agencies | $7.0M | 0% |
