Home > Comparison > Technology > IBM vs G
The strategic rivalry between International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and Genpact Limited shapes the evolution of the technology sector. IBM operates as a capital-intensive technology conglomerate, delivering hybrid cloud, AI, and consulting services. Genpact focuses on high-margin business process outsourcing and digital transformation solutions. This analysis pits IBM’s scale and innovation against Genpact’s agility, aiming to identify which trajectory offers superior risk-adjusted returns for a diversified portfolio.
Table of contents
Companies Overview
International Business Machines Corporation and Genpact Limited both hold influential positions in global information technology services.
International Business Machines Corporation: Integrated Technology Solutions Leader
IBM generates revenue through four main segments: Software, Consulting, Infrastructure, and Financing. Its hybrid cloud and AI-driven software form the backbone of its core business. In 2026, IBM focuses strategically on expanding its enterprise open-source and cloud platform capabilities to enhance client digital transformations.
Genpact Limited: Global Process and IT Services Specialist
Genpact operates across banking, consumer goods, and high-tech sectors, offering business process outsourcing and IT services. Its finance, risk management, and digital transformation solutions drive revenue. In 2026, Genpact prioritizes ESG advisory and analytics to strengthen its position in sustainable business processes.
Strategic Collision: Similarities & Divergences
IBM pursues an integrated technology ecosystem, emphasizing open-source cloud platforms, while Genpact adopts a process-driven, client-centric model focused on outsourcing and transformation services. Their primary battleground is digital business transformation, where IBM leans on technology innovation and Genpact on operational efficiency. This creates distinct investment profiles: IBM as a tech infrastructure stalwart, Genpact as a process and analytics growth play.
Income Statement Comparison
This data dissects the core profitability and scalability of both corporate engines to reveal who dominates the bottom line:
| Metric | International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | Genpact Limited (G) |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 67.5B | 4.77B |
| Cost of Revenue | 27.4B | 3.08B |
| Operating Expenses | 29.9B | 988M |
| Gross Profit | 40.2B | 1.69B |
| EBITDA | 17.3B | 853M |
| EBIT | 12.3B | 756M |
| Interest Expense | 1.94B | 80M |
| Net Income | 10.6B | 514M |
| EPS | 11.36 | 2.88 |
| Fiscal Year | 2025 | 2024 |
Income Statement Analysis: The Bottom-Line Duel
This income statement comparison reveals how each company’s operational strength and profitability have evolved in recent years, exposing their true financial efficiency.
International Business Machines Corporation Analysis
IBM’s revenue rose from $57.4B in 2021 to $67.5B in 2025, showing steady growth. Net income surged sharply from $5.74B in 2021 to $10.6B in 2025, reflecting strong profitability momentum. IBM maintains robust gross margins near 59.5% and net margins of 15.7%, signaling efficient cost control and a powerful earnings engine in 2025.
Genpact Limited Analysis
Genpact’s revenue climbed from $4.0B in 2021 to $4.8B in 2024, a respectable expansion. Net income also grew from $369M in 2021 to $514M in 2024, though recent net margin contracted to 10.8%. With gross margin at 35.5% and EBIT margin near 15.9%, Genpact shows moderate profitability but faces margin pressure despite consistent top-line growth.
Margin Mastery vs. Revenue Muscle
IBM outpaces Genpact in both scale and profitability, doubling net income with superior margins. IBM’s operating leverage and margin expansion highlight efficiency unmatched by Genpact’s modest gains. For investors, IBM’s profile offers a stronger fundamental foundation, combining size with resilient earnings growth and margin discipline.
Financial Ratios Comparison
These vital ratios act as a diagnostic tool to expose the underlying fiscal health, valuation premiums, and capital efficiency of the companies compared below:
| Ratios | International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | Genpact Limited (G) |
|---|---|---|
| ROE | 22.1% (2024) | 21.5% (2024) |
| ROIC | 9.2% (2024) | 13.0% (2024) |
| P/E | 34.2 (2024) | 14.9 (2024) |
| P/B | 7.54 (2024) | 3.21 (2024) |
| Current Ratio | 1.04 (2024) | 2.16 (2024) |
| Quick Ratio | 1.00 (2024) | 2.16 (2024) |
| D/E | 2.14 (2024) | 0.60 (2024) |
| Debt-to-Assets | 42.6% (2024) | 29.0% (2024) |
| Interest Coverage | 5.88 (2024) | 8.83 (2024) |
| Asset Turnover | 0.46 (2024) | 0.96 (2024) |
| Fixed Asset Turnover | 7.03 (2024) | 11.7 (2024) |
| Payout ratio | 102.1% (2024) | 21.1% (2024) |
| Dividend yield | 2.98% (2024) | 1.42% (2024) |
| Fiscal Year | 2024 | 2024 |
Efficiency & Valuation Duel: The Vital Signs
Ratios act as a company’s DNA, revealing hidden risks and operational excellence that shape investment potential.
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
IBM shows a favorable net margin of 15.7% but registers a zero ROE and ROIC, signaling weak profitability relative to equity and invested capital. The P/E ratio at 26.07 suggests the stock is somewhat expensive. IBM sustains shareholder value through a 2.27% dividend yield, balancing moderate returns despite operational challenges.
Genpact Limited (G)
Genpact posts a strong ROE of 21.5% and ROIC of 13%, indicating efficient capital use and profitability. Its P/E ratio at 14.92 implies a more attractive valuation compared to IBM. The company maintains a healthy current ratio of 2.16 and offers a modest 1.42% dividend yield, reflecting solid operational footing with room for growth.
Operational Efficiency vs. Valuation Appeal
Genpact delivers superior profitability and more favorable ratios, presenting a balanced risk-reward profile with efficient capital deployment. IBM’s premium valuation and dividend focus suit investors prioritizing income over growth. The choice hinges on whether the investor values operational efficiency or dividend stability more.
Which one offers the Superior Shareholder Reward?
I see IBM delivers a 2.3% dividend yield with a hefty 59% payout ratio, well covered by free cash flow at 210%. IBM couples dividends with aggressive buybacks, fueling steady shareholder returns. Genpact yields only 1.4%, paying out just 21% of earnings, retaining cash for growth and acquisitions. Its buyback program is more modest but complements capital allocation aimed at expansion. Historically, IBM’s high payout and buybacks suit income-focused investors seeking reliable cash returns. Genpact’s reinvestment approach targets long-term growth but yields lower immediate income. In 2026, I judge IBM offers a more attractive total return profile for yield-seeking investors, while Genpact suits growth-oriented portfolios willing to forgo current income.
Comparative Score Analysis: The Strategic Profile
The radar chart reveals the fundamental DNA and trade-offs of International Business Machines Corporation and Genpact Limited:
Genpact presents a more balanced profile with consistent scores in DCF (5), ROE (4), ROA (4), and moderate Debt/Equity (2) and valuation metrics (P/E 3, P/B 3). IBM, while strong in ROE (5) and ROA (4), suffers from a weak Debt/Equity score (1) and poor valuation metrics (P/E 2, P/B 1). IBM relies heavily on operational efficiency but struggles with financial leverage and market valuation. Genpact’s well-rounded metrics suggest greater stability and prudent capital allocation.
Bankruptcy Risk: Solvency Showdown
The Altman Z-Scores place both firms securely in the safe zone, indicating robust solvency and low bankruptcy risk in this cycle:
Financial Health: Quality of Operations
Genpact’s Piotroski F-Score of 8 signals very strong financial health, outperforming IBM’s average score of 5, which raises some internal red flags:
Genpact demonstrates superior operational quality and balance sheet strength, while IBM’s middling score suggests caution around its internal financial metrics.
How are the two companies positioned?
This section dissects IBM and Genpact’s operational DNA by comparing revenue distribution and internal strengths and weaknesses. The goal is to confront their economic moats and identify which business model offers the most resilient, sustainable competitive advantage today.
Revenue Segmentation: The Strategic Mix
This visual comparison dissects how International Business Machines Corporation and Genpact Limited diversify their income streams and where their primary sector bets lie:
IBM reveals a broad revenue base, with Software at $27.1B, Consulting $20.7B, and Infrastructure $14B, showing a balanced portfolio. Genpact leans heavily on Consumer and Healthcare at $1.69B, lacking diversification. IBM’s mix supports ecosystem lock-in and infrastructure dominance, reducing risk. Genpact’s concentration signals dependency on a single sector, implying higher vulnerability to market shifts. This contrast highlights IBM’s strategic breadth versus Genpact’s focused niche.
Strengths and Weaknesses Comparison
This table compares the Strengths and Weaknesses of IBM and Genpact Limited based on diversification, profitability, financials, innovation, global presence, and market share:
IBM Strengths
- Diverse revenue streams across Software, Consulting, Infrastructure, Financing
- Strong global presence with significant Americas and EMEA sales
- Favorable net margin at 15.69%
- Solid interest coverage at 6.34
- Dividend yield at 2.27% supports shareholder returns
Genpact Limited Strengths
- Favorable profitability metrics including 21.5% ROE and 12.96% ROIC
- Strong liquidity with current and quick ratios at 2.16
- Favorable WACC at 6.91% supports value creation
- Growing revenues in Consumer and Healthcare, Banking, High Tech sectors
- Favorable interest coverage at 9.51
IBM Weaknesses
- Unfavorable ROE and ROIC at 0% indicate weak capital efficiency
- Current and quick ratios at 0 signal liquidity concerns
- Unavailable WACC data limits cost of capital assessment
- Asset turnover and fixed asset turnover unfavorable, showing operational inefficiency
- Unfavorable P/E ratio at 26.07 may imply overvaluation
Genpact Limited Weaknesses
- Unfavorable Price to Book ratio at 3.21 suggests premium valuation
- Neutral debt to equity of 0.6 could indicate moderate leverage risk
- Dividend yield neutral at 1.42%, less attractive for income investors
- Asset turnover neutral at 0.96, indicating average asset use efficiency
Overall, IBM demonstrates strong diversification and global reach but faces challenges in capital efficiency and liquidity ratios. Genpact shows robust profitability and liquidity but carries valuation and moderate leverage considerations. These factors shape each company’s strategic options in competitive markets.
The Moat Duel: Analyzing Competitive Defensibility
A structural moat is the only shield protecting long-term profits from relentless competition and market pressures. Let’s dissect the moats of two key tech service players:
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM): Intangible Assets and Hybrid Cloud Expertise
IBM’s moat stems from its deep portfolio of software, consulting, and hybrid cloud solutions. This intangible asset base fuels robust margins and a 15.7% net margin, signaling margin stability. However, a declining ROIC trend through 2025 casts doubt on moat durability amid growing cloud competition in 2026.
Genpact Limited (G): Operational Efficiency and Expanding Process Automation
Genpact’s competitive edge lies in its cost advantage and specialized process outsourcing capabilities. It sustains a favorable 10.8% net margin and shows a growing ROIC, outperforming its WACC by over 6%. This trajectory supports further expansion into ESG and digital transformation services in 2026.
Moat Battle: Intangible Assets vs. Operational Efficiency
Genpact holds the deeper moat with a rising ROIC and clear value creation, indicating efficient capital use and profit growth. IBM’s intangible asset moat is substantial but weakened by declining ROIC, leaving Genpact better positioned to defend and grow market share.
Which stock offers better returns?
The past year saw IBM’s stock surge significantly, while Genpact showed solid gains with lower volatility. Trading volumes increased for both, reflecting heightened market interest.
Trend Comparison
IBM’s stock rose 56.52% over the past 12 months, signaling a strong bullish trend despite decelerating momentum. The price ranged from 165.71 to 309.24, with high volatility (43.36 std deviation).
Genpact’s shares gained 28.31% in the same period, also bullish but with lower volatility (6.08 std deviation). The trend shows deceleration, with price moving between 30.9 and 55.05.
IBM outperformed Genpact by a wide margin, delivering superior returns and greater price appreciation over the last year.
Target Prices
Analysts present a bullish consensus for IBM and moderate optimism for Genpact.
| Company | Target Low | Target High | Consensus |
|---|---|---|---|
| International Business Machines Corporation | 304 | 380 | 349.5 |
| Genpact Limited | 50 | 53 | 51.5 |
IBM’s target consensus at 349.5 suggests a 14% upside from the current 306.7 price, reflecting confidence in its hybrid cloud and AI segments. Genpact’s consensus of 51.5 implies a 17% gain, signaling steady growth expectations.
Don’t Let Luck Decide Your Entry Point
Optimize your entry points with our advanced ProRealTime indicators. You’ll get efficient buy signals with precise price targets for maximum performance. Start outperforming now!
How do institutions grade them?
Here is a summary of the latest institutional grades for International Business Machines Corporation and Genpact Limited:
International Business Machines Corporation Grades
The following table shows recent grades assigned to IBM by major grading firms.
| Grading Company | Action | New Grade | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wedbush | Maintain | Outperform | 2026-01-29 |
| RBC Capital | Maintain | Outperform | 2026-01-29 |
| Stifel | Maintain | Buy | 2026-01-29 |
| JP Morgan | Maintain | Neutral | 2026-01-29 |
| UBS | Maintain | Sell | 2026-01-29 |
| Evercore ISI Group | Maintain | Outperform | 2026-01-29 |
| Jefferies | Maintain | Buy | 2026-01-29 |
| JP Morgan | Maintain | Neutral | 2026-01-21 |
| Evercore ISI Group | Maintain | Outperform | 2026-01-20 |
| B of A Securities | Maintain | Buy | 2026-01-13 |
Genpact Limited Grades
The following table summarizes recent grades assigned to Genpact by recognized grading firms.
| Grading Company | Action | New Grade | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| JP Morgan | Maintain | Neutral | 2025-08-20 |
| Needham | Maintain | Buy | 2025-08-08 |
| Mizuho | Maintain | Neutral | 2025-07-01 |
| Needham | Maintain | Buy | 2025-06-30 |
| TD Cowen | Maintain | Buy | 2025-06-27 |
| Needham | Maintain | Buy | 2025-05-08 |
| Baird | Maintain | Neutral | 2025-05-08 |
| Mizuho | Maintain | Neutral | 2025-02-10 |
| Needham | Maintain | Buy | 2025-02-07 |
| Jefferies | Upgrade | Buy | 2025-01-21 |
Which company has the best grades?
IBM holds a broader range of ratings with several Outperform and Buy grades, balanced by some Neutral and Sell opinions. Genpact consistently earns Buy and Neutral ratings, with a recent upgrade to Buy. IBM’s mix suggests diverse analyst views, while Genpact’s grades indicate steadier positive sentiment. Investors might interpret IBM’s spread as reflecting sector complexity, whereas Genpact’s consistency may suggest clearer positioning.
Risks specific to each company
The following categories identify critical pressure points and systemic threats facing both firms in the 2026 market environment:
1. Market & Competition
International Business Machines Corporation
- Faces intense competition in hybrid cloud and AI markets; legacy segments pressure margins.
Genpact Limited
- Competes in outsourced IT and business services with pricing pressures and evolving digital demands.
2. Capital Structure & Debt
International Business Machines Corporation
- Strong interest coverage at 6.34 but unfavorable debt-to-equity metrics raise balance sheet concerns.
Genpact Limited
- Moderate debt-to-equity at 0.6 with favorable interest coverage of 9.51, reflecting prudent leverage.
3. Stock Volatility
International Business Machines Corporation
- Beta of 0.698 indicates lower volatility, offering relative defensive stability.
Genpact Limited
- Beta slightly higher at 0.755, implying moderate sensitivity to market swings.
4. Regulatory & Legal
International Business Machines Corporation
- Subject to stringent US tech regulations and data privacy laws with potential compliance costs.
Genpact Limited
- Faces global regulatory environments including data protection and outsourcing regulations across multiple jurisdictions.
5. Supply Chain & Operations
International Business Machines Corporation
- Complex global supply chain for hardware and cloud infrastructure risks delays and cost inflation.
Genpact Limited
- Relies on global delivery centers; operational risks include geopolitical disruptions and talent retention.
6. ESG & Climate Transition
International Business Machines Corporation
- Increasing pressure to align with climate goals; must innovate in sustainable tech solutions.
Genpact Limited
- Offers ESG advisory but must continuously improve own carbon footprint and governance standards.
7. Geopolitical Exposure
International Business Machines Corporation
- Significant US-centric operations expose it to trade tensions and tech export restrictions.
Genpact Limited
- Operations span multiple regions including Asia and Americas, increasing geopolitical risk but diversifying exposure.
Which company shows a better risk-adjusted profile?
Genpact’s most impactful risk is geopolitical exposure due to its diverse global operations. IBM’s key risk lies in capital structure weaknesses, notably its unfavorable debt metrics. Genpact demonstrates a better risk-adjusted profile, supported by a strong Piotroski score of 8 and favorable debt management. IBM’s legacy debt burden and mixed financial metrics justify caution despite its stable market position.
Final Verdict: Which stock to choose?
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) wields a superpower in its robust income quality and consistent profitability improvements. Its ability to generate strong free cash flow despite high leverage stands out. The main point of vigilance remains its declining ROIC trend, which could pressure future value creation. IBM suits portfolios seeking steady income with moderate growth ambitions.
Genpact Limited (G) boasts a strategic moat with growing ROIC well above its WACC, signaling efficient capital use and durable competitive advantage. Its healthier balance sheet and higher liquidity ratios offer a safer profile relative to IBM. Genpact fits well in GARP portfolios that balance growth potential with financial stability.
If you prioritize resilient cash flow generation and dividend income, IBM is the compelling choice due to its established profitability and market presence. However, if you seek stronger capital efficiency and a healthier balance sheet with growth upside, Genpact offers better stability and a more favorable moat. Both present distinct scenarios aligned with different investor risk appetites and strategic goals.
Disclaimer: Investment carries a risk of loss of initial capital. The past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Be sure to understand risks before making an investment decision.
Go Further
I encourage you to read the complete analyses of International Business Machines Corporation and Genpact Limited to enhance your investment decisions:
