vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of L3Harris (LHX) and Northrop Grumman (NOC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
L3Harris is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($21.9B vs $11.7B, roughly 1.9× Northrop Grumman). On growth, Northrop Grumman posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.6% vs 2.5%). Over the past eight quarters, L3Harris's revenue compounded faster (102.4% CAGR vs 7.5%).
L3Harris Technologies, Inc. is an American technology company, defense contractor, and information technology services provider that produces products for command and control systems, wireless equipment, tactical radios, avionics and electronic systems, night vision equipment, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C3ISR) systems and products, ocean systems, instrumentation, navigation products, training devices and services, and both terrestrial/spaceborne antennas for use in the govern...
Northrop Grumman Corporation, headquartered in West Falls Church, Virginia, is an American aerospace and defense company that designs and manufactures systems for aeronautics, defense, missions, and space. The company is the 5th largest contractor of the U.S. federal government; it receives over 2% of total spending by the federal government of the United States on contractors.
LHX vs NOC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $21.9B | $11.7B |
| Net Profit | — | $1.4B |
| Gross Margin | 25.7% | — |
| Operating Margin | 9.7% | 10.9% |
| Net Margin | — | 12.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 2.5% | 9.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 12.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $9.94 |
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.
| Q1 26 | $21.9B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.7B | $11.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $10.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.4B | $10.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.5B | $9.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $10.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.3B | $10.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.3B | $10.2B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $462.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $458.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $453.0M | $481.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $400.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $366.0M | $940.0M |
| Q1 26 | 25.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 26.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 24.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 25.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 25.7% | — |
| Q1 26 | 9.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 11.0% | 10.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 11.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.5% | 13.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.3% | 6.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 10.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.4% | 11.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.0% | 10.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 8.2% | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 10.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.4% | 11.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.2% | 5.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 11.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.6% | 10.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.9% | 9.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.46 | $9.94 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $7.67 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.44 | $8.15 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.37 | $3.32 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $8.66 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.10 | $7.00 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.92 | $6.36 |
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 | $1.1B | $4.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $10.4B | $15.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $19.6B | $16.7B |
| Total Assets | $41.2B | $51.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.53× | 0.91× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $339.0M | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $482.0M | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $615.0M | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $539.0M | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $547.0M | $3.3B |
| Q1 26 | $10.4B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $11.0B | $15.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.0B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.1B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $14.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.5B | — |
| Q1 26 | $19.6B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $19.5B | $16.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $16.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $19.3B | $15.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $19.5B | $15.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $15.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $19.0B | $14.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.8B | $14.3B |
| Q1 26 | $41.2B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $41.0B | $51.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $49.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $41.2B | $49.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $42.0B | $48.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $49.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $41.9B | $48.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $41.7B | $47.7B |
| Q1 26 | 0.53× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.56× | 0.91× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.57× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.57× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.96× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.58× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.56× | — |
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 | — | $3.9B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $3.2B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 27.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 5.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 2.73× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $3.3B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $546.0M | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $640.0M | $868.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $-1.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $780.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $754.0M | $1.4B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $427.0M | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $552.0M | $637.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $-1.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $702.0M | $730.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $657.0M | $1.1B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 7.5% | 27.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 12.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.2% | 6.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 18.3% | -19.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 16.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.3% | 7.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.4% | 10.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.1% | 5.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.6% | 2.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.1% | 2.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 7.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.5% | 3.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.8% | 3.1% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.18× | 2.73× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.42× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.40× | 0.74× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.49× | -3.25× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.04× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.95× | 1.06× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.06× | 1.52× |
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
LHX
Segment breakdown not available.
NOC
| Mission Systems | $3.4B | 29% |
| Defense Systems | $2.1B | 18% |
| Services | $2.1B | 18% |
| Cost Reimbursable | $1.6B | 14% |
| Other | $867.0M | 7% |
| International Customer | $739.0M | 6% |
| Asia Pacific | $546.0M | 5% |
| All Other Geographic Region Domain | $242.0M | 2% |
| Other Customers | $14.0M | 0% |
