vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of GREIF, INC (GEF) and SONOCO PRODUCTS CO (SON), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
SONOCO PRODUCTS CO is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.8B vs $994.8M, roughly 1.8× GREIF, INC). SONOCO PRODUCTS CO runs the higher net margin — 17.6% vs 18.8%, a 1.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, SONOCO PRODUCTS CO posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (2655.7% vs -29.8%). Over the past eight quarters, SONOCO PRODUCTS CO's revenue compounded faster (3.9% CAGR vs -14.8%).
Greif, Inc. is a global leader in industrial packaging products and services based in Delaware, Ohio. Originally a manufacturer of barrels, the company is now focused on producing steel, fiber and plastic drums, IBCs, jerrycans, plastic bottles, closures, containerboard, corrugated products and adhesives. In 2018, the company ranked 617 on the Fortune 1000.
Sonoco Products Company is an American provider of diversified consumer packaging, industrial products, protective packaging, and packaging supply chain services and the world's largest producer of composite cans, tubes, and cores. The company was founded in 1889 as Southern Novelty Company with annualized net sales of approximately $7.3 billion. Sonoco has 19,900 employees in more than 335 operations in 33 countries, serving more than 85 nations. The company is headquartered in Hartsville, S...
GEF vs SON — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $994.8M | $1.8B |
| Net Profit | $174.6M | $332.2M |
| Gross Margin | 20.4% | 19.6% |
| Operating Margin | 25.8% | 29.4% |
| Net Margin | 17.6% | 18.8% |
| Revenue YoY | -29.8% | 2655.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 149.1% | 873.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $3.33 |
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 | $994.8M | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $64.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.6B |
| Q4 25 | $174.6M | $332.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $64.0M | $122.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $47.3M | $493.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.6M | $54.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $70.1M | $-43.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $87.1M | $50.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $44.4M | $90.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $65.2M |
| Q4 25 | 20.4% | 19.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 22.7% | 21.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 23.1% | 21.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.4% | 20.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 20.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.0% | 21.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.7% | 22.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 20.6% |
| Q4 25 | 25.8% | 29.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.4% | 9.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.6% | 9.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.7% | 7.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.9% | -84.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.8% | 7.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.2% | 8.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 6.9% |
| Q4 25 | 17.6% | 18.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.6% | 5.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.4% | 25.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.7% | 3.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.9% | -67.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.0% | 3.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.2% | 5.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 4.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.33 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.23 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $4.96 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.55 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-0.44 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.51 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.92 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0.66 |
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 | $243.5M | $378.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $655.1M | $3.8B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.9B | $3.6B |
| Total Assets | $5.5B | $11.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.22× | 1.05× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $243.5M | $378.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $285.2M | $244.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $252.7M | $329.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $201.1M | $181.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $197.7M | $431.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $194.2M | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $196.0M | $140.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $172.2M |
| Q4 25 | $655.1M | $3.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.3B | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.4B | $5.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.5B | $5.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.7B | $5.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.9B | $4.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9B | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $2.9B | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | $3.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | $2.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.1B | $2.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0B | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.4B |
| Q4 25 | $5.5B | $11.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.7B | $11.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.8B | $12.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.6B | $12.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.6B | $12.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.8B | $9.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.8B | $7.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $7.2B |
| Q4 25 | 0.22× | 1.05× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.06× | 1.15× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.12× | 1.54× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.24× | 2.03× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.31× | 2.19× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.41× | 1.74× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.44× | 1.04× | ||
| Q1 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 | $-24.4M | $412.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $322.3M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 18.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 5.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | -0.14× | 1.24× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $345.8M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-24.4M | $412.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $197.7M | $291.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $136.4M | $193.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-30.8M | $-208.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $187.2M | $396.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $76.8M | $162.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $87.5M | $109.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $166.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $322.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $225.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $98.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-300.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $274.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $70.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $16.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $79.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | 18.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 10.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 5.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -17.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 427.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 4.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 4.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 5.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 5.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 5.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 190.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 5.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 5.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 5.3% |
| Q4 25 | -0.14× | 1.24× | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.09× | 2.37× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.88× | 0.39× | ||
| Q1 25 | -3.58× | -3.82× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.67× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.88× | 3.18× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.97× | 1.20× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.55× |
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
GEF
| Other | $501.0M | 50% |
| Sustainable Fiber Solutions Segment | $300.4M | 30% |
| Customized Polymer Solutions Segment | $124.8M | 13% |
| Durable Metal Solutions Segment | $62.5M | 6% |
| Innovative Closure Solutions Segment | $6.1M | 1% |
SON
| Europe Middle East And Africa EMEA | $743.2M | 42% |
| Consumer Packaging | $441.6M | 25% |
| Industrial Paper Packaging Segment | $359.6M | 20% |
| Other | $110.6M | 6% |
| Other Geographical Areas | $85.8M | 5% |
| CA | $27.1M | 2% |
