HALLIBURTON COMPANY (HAL) 2025 10-K Earnings Analysis
HALLIBURTON COMPANY2025 Earnings Analysis
60/100
FY2024 → FY2025 Year-over-Year
vs prior annual reportIn FY2025, HALLIBURTON COMPANY saw net income declined 48.7% to $1.3B and free cash flow declined 31% to $1.7B.
Halliburton FY2025 delivers $22.2B revenue, $1.3B net income, $2.9B OCF, and $1.7B FCF with a 12.3% ROE — one of the world's largest oilfield services companies navigating a moderated drilling cycle. OCF/NI of 2.28x confirms cash-backed earnings with significant non-cash charges. FCF of $1.7B at 1.30x net income shows good free cash conversion. Goodwill at 11.7% is moderate. Halliburton's moat is based on proprietary drilling and completion technologies, global scale, and the integrated service model. However, OFS companies lack pricing power over commodity oil prices and face the structural risk of energy transition reducing long-term drilling demand. The moat is holding through technology differentiation but facing cyclical and structural headwinds.
Filing analysis
HALLIBURTON COMPANY 2025 10-K Analysis
This page reads HALLIBURTON COMPANY's 2025 10-K annual report through the EarningsMoat framework: earnings quality, economic moat strength, capital allocation, and key risks. The current overall score is 60/100, or grade D.
HAL Earnings Quality
The earnings-quality module scores 68/100, with CF/Net Income: 2.28x, FCF/Net Income: 1.30x. The core question is whether reported profit is backed by operating cash flow and recurring business economics. See the earnings quality analysis guide.
HAL Economic Moat Analysis
The moat-strength module scores 55/100, with Technology Differentiation: Competitive Edge, OFS Cyclicality: Structural Weakness. The test is whether the advantage can protect returns after competitors react. Read the economic moat analysis guide.
HAL Free Cash Flow vs Net Income
CF/Net Income: 2.28x, FCF/Net Income: 1.30x is the fastest read on whether accounting earnings turn into cash. The capital-allocation module scores 68/100. For the diagnostic, start with cash flow vs net income.
HAL Key Risks from the Annual Report
The risk module scores 50/100, with Oil Price/E&P Spending: Primary Risk, Energy Transition: Long-Term Threat. The goal is to separate ordinary disclosure from risks that can change margins, cash flow, leverage, or the moat itself.
Is HAL a High Quality Earnings Stock?
Based on this 2025 filing, HAL needs a closer read before it qualifies as a high-quality earnings candidate: the overall grade is D, and the earnings-quality score is 68/100. This is a research screen, not investment advice.
Read the report first
Understand HALLIBURTON COMPANY first, then decide if it belongs on your watchlist
The HAL score, explanation, management facts, and filing sources are all here. When you want to follow more companies, review new-filing changes, or keep notes for the next review, keep more names in your watchlist.
Read the report first
Understand the company first. Keep up with every filing as your list grows.
A single report helps you judge one company. As your watchlist grows, review score, cash flow, moat, and risk changes together instead of repeating the same work.
Keep more names together
When your list grows, keep HAL with the rest of your names and review score, grade, and risk changes over time.
See how to track more namesAsk follow-up questions
Dig into cash conversion, moat evidence, capital allocation, and risk changes without rereading the full 10-K.
Ask a questionExport and revisit records
Save the HAL report as research notes you can revisit before the next filing.
Save research notesCore Dimension Scores
Evaluating competitive strength across earnings quality, moat strength, and risk sustainability
Overall Score Trend
Earnings Quality
OCF of $2.9B covers $1.3B net income by 2.28x — solid coverage reflecting significant depreciation on drilling equipment, wireline tools, and oilfield service assets. The capital-intensive nature of OFS operations generates substantial non-cash charges that widen the OCF/NI gap. Cash earnings quality is confirmed.
FCF of $1.7B exceeds $1.3B net income at 1.30x — strong free cash conversion for an OFS company. Capex of $1.3B (5.6% of revenue) reflects disciplined capital spending relative to the post-2020 OFS cost discipline framework. This FCF supports shareholder returns and debt reduction.
ROE of 12.3% on $10.5B equity is adequate but below the cost of capital premium expected from a cyclical OFS company. The 58.2% debt ratio provides moderate leverage. At cycle-peak activity levels, Halliburton can generate 25%+ ROE, but the moderated drilling cycle constrains returns. The ROE reflects the OFS industry's inherent cyclicality.
Goodwill of $2.9B against $25.0B total assets at 11.7% is moderate, reflecting historical acquisitions in the completions and production enhancement businesses. The goodwill has been stable and represents established market positions. The moderate level minimizes impairment risk.
Halliburton's earnings quality scores 68/100. OCF/NI of 2.28x and FCF/NI of 1.30x confirm cash-backed earnings with strong free cash conversion. ROE of 12.3% is adequate but cyclically compressed. Goodwill at 11.7% is moderate. The earnings profile reflects a well-managed OFS company in a moderated drilling cycle — cash generation is solid but return on capital is below peak levels.
Moat Strength
Halliburton has significant proprietary technology in drilling fluids, cementing, wireline evaluation, completion tools, and production enhancement. These technologies improve well performance and reduce costs for E&P customers. However, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes offer comparable technologies, limiting the extent of Halliburton's technology moat. The competitive advantage is real but not wide.
Oilfield services demand is derived from E&P capital spending, which is driven by commodity oil/gas prices. Halliburton has no pricing power over the underlying commodity — when E&P operators cut budgets, OFS pricing collapses. The post-2020 capital discipline by E&P companies has moderated the OFS cycle amplitude, but structural demand volatility remains the business model's fundamental weakness.
Halliburton has a strong North American market position, particularly in completions for shale/unconventional wells. North America is the world's most technologically sophisticated OFS market, but it is also the most volatile — U.S. rig count responds quickly to oil price changes. Halliburton's North America focus amplifies cyclical exposure compared to more internationally diversified peers.
Halliburton's moat scores 55/100. Technology differentiation provides a competitive edge but is matched by Schlumberger and Baker Hughes. OFS cyclicality is the structural weakness — demand is entirely derivative of E&P spending and commodity prices. North America focus amplifies cyclical exposure. The moat is narrow and holding through technology, but not widening — the OFS business model lacks pricing power.
Capital Allocation
Debt ratio of 58.2% with $7.2B long-term debt is moderate for an OFS company. The post-2020 industry-wide focus on deleveraging has improved Halliburton's balance sheet. The leverage is manageable given the $2.9B OCF but limits flexibility in severe downturns.
FCF of $1.7B is allocated to dividends, share buybacks, and debt reduction. The capital return framework prioritizes maintaining the dividend, funding high-return technology investments, and returning excess cash to shareholders. This disciplined approach is consistent with the post-2020 OFS capital discipline framework adopted industry-wide.
Capex of $1.3B (5.6% of revenue) is disciplined and focused on technology upgrades and equipment maintenance. Halliburton has avoided the boom-time capital spending that historically destroyed OFS shareholder value. The disciplined capex framework ensures capital allocation priorities are maintained through cycles.
Halliburton's capital allocation scores 68/100. FCF of $1.7B is well-allocated across shareholder returns and debt reduction. Capex discipline at $1.3B is maintained. The 58.2% debt ratio is moderate. Capital allocation reflects the post-2020 OFS industry's improved financial discipline. The main constraint is the cyclical nature of OFS cash flows.
Key Risks
OFS revenue is entirely dependent on E&P capital spending, which is driven by commodity prices. Sustained low oil prices below $50/bbl would trigger E&P budget cuts, reducing drilling activity and OFS pricing. The moderated drilling cycle in FY2025 has already compressed Halliburton's earnings from peak levels. This is an uncontrollable, existential risk.
If global oil demand peaks and declines due to energy transition, long-term drilling demand will structurally decline, reducing OFS market size. While the timeline is uncertain (and near-term demand remains strong), the directional risk to an OFS business built on fossil fuel drilling is clear. Halliburton's technology portfolio has limited applicability to renewable energy or geothermal markets.
Halliburton operates globally and faces geopolitical risks in Middle East, Africa, and other regions. Tariffs on steel and equipment increase costs. Sanctions restrict operations in certain countries. The global nature of OFS operations creates multi-jurisdictional regulatory and political exposure.
Halliburton's risk profile scores 50/100. Oil price/E&P spending dependence is the primary uncontrollable risk. Energy transition poses a long-term structural threat. Geopolitical and tariff risks affect global operations. These risks are partially mitigated by post-2020 capital discipline and technology differentiation, but the fundamental vulnerability to commodity price cycles cannot be eliminated.
Management
Halliburton management executes the post-2020 OFS playbook — capital discipline, technology investment, and shareholder returns. The strategic focus is correct for a cyclical OFS business. Management's options are fundamentally constrained by the commodity cycle — no amount of operational excellence can eliminate dependence on E&P spending levels. Within these constraints, management is executing well.
Ask about this section
Ask one question here. Keep digging when the issue needs more work.
This analysis is for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.