vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB) and Illinois Tool Works (ITW), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Illinois Tool Works is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.1B vs $1.5B, roughly 2.7× Hubbell Incorporated). Illinois Tool Works runs the higher net margin — 14.6% vs 19.3%, a 4.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Hubbell Incorporated posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.9% vs 4.1%). Illinois Tool Works produced more free cash flow last quarter ($858.0M vs $388.8M). Over the past eight quarters, Hubbell Incorporated's revenue compounded faster (3.3% CAGR vs 1.5%).
Hubbell Incorporated, headquartered in Shelton, Connecticut, is an American company that designs, manufactures, and sells electrical and electronic products for non-residential and residential construction, industrial, and utility applications. Hubbell was founded by Harvey Hubbell as a proprietorship in 1888, and was incorporated in Connecticut in 1905.
Illinois Tool Works Inc. (ITW) is an American Fortune 500 company that produces engineered fasteners and components, equipment and consumable systems, and specialty products. It was founded in 1912 by Byron L. Smith and has built its growth on a "small-wins strategy" based on decentralization, simplicity, customer-focused innovation, and acquisitions.
HUBB vs ITW — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.5B | $4.1B |
| Net Profit | $217.7M | $790.0M |
| Gross Margin | 34.6% | 53.0% |
| Operating Margin | 20.3% | 26.5% |
| Net Margin | 14.6% | 19.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.9% | 4.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 10.5% | 5.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $4.06 | $2.72 |
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 | $1.5B | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | $4.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $4.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | $3.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.4B | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5B | $4.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | $4.0B |
| Q4 25 | $217.7M | $790.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $255.5M | $821.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $244.2M | $755.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $169.7M | $700.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $197.0M | $750.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $219.4M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $213.6M | $759.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $147.8M | $819.0M |
| Q4 25 | 34.6% | 53.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.2% | 53.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 37.2% | 52.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 33.1% | 52.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 33.8% | 52.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 34.5% | 52.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 35.0% | 52.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 32.0% | 51.7% |
| Q4 25 | 20.3% | 26.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 22.0% | 27.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 22.7% | 26.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 17.5% | 24.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 19.3% | 26.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 21.1% | 26.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.7% | 26.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.3% | 28.4% |
| Q4 25 | 14.6% | 19.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.0% | 20.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 16.5% | 18.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.4% | 18.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.8% | 19.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.2% | 29.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.7% | 18.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.6% | 20.6% |
| Q4 25 | $4.06 | $2.72 | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.77 | $2.81 | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.56 | $2.58 | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.15 | $2.38 | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.65 | $2.53 | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.05 | $3.91 | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.94 | $2.54 | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.73 | $2.73 |
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 | $497.9M | $851.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $7.7B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.8B | $3.2B |
| Total Assets | $8.2B | $16.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 2.38× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $497.9M | $851.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $680.9M | $924.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $399.6M | $788.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $360.3M | $873.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $345.0M | $948.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $445.6M | $947.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $406.5M | $862.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $400.3M | $959.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $7.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $7.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.9B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.9B | — |
| Q4 25 | $3.8B | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.7B | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.5B | $3.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.3B | $3.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.3B | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.2B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.1B | $3.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.9B | $3.0B |
| Q4 25 | $8.2B | $16.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.5B | $16.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.1B | $16.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.9B | $15.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.7B | $15.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.9B | $15.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.9B | $15.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.9B | $15.1B |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.38× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.39× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.41× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.44× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.44× | 2.14× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.51× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.63× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.65× | — |
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 | $447.5M | $963.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $388.8M | $858.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 26.0% | 21.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 3.9% | 2.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 2.06× | 1.22× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $874.7M | $2.7B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $447.5M | $963.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $284.3M | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $260.6M | $550.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $37.4M | $592.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $432.4M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $227.0M | $891.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $239.6M | $687.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $92.2M | $589.0M |
| Q4 25 | $388.8M | $858.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $253.8M | $904.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $220.7M | $449.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.4M | $496.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $364.4M | $996.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $188.8M | $783.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $205.7M | $571.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $51.9M | $494.0M |
| Q4 25 | 26.0% | 21.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.9% | 22.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.9% | 11.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.8% | 12.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 27.3% | 25.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.1% | 19.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.2% | 14.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.7% | 12.4% |
| Q4 25 | 3.9% | 2.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.0% | 2.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.7% | 2.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.9% | 2.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.1% | 3.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.6% | 2.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.3% | 2.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.9% | 2.4% |
| Q4 25 | 2.06× | 1.22× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.11× | 1.24× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.07× | 0.73× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.22× | 0.85× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.19× | 1.49× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.03× | 0.77× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.12× | 0.91× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.62× | 0.72× |
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
HUBB
| Grid Infrastructure | $717.0M | 48% |
| Industrial | $393.7M | 26% |
| Grid Automation | $218.9M | 15% |
| Electrical Products | $163.1M | 11% |
ITW
Segment breakdown not available.
