Cash Conversion Cycle by Hardware Company

Rank the Cycle, Not a Preference Order

Cash conversion cycle is DIO + DSO - DPO in days. Ranking seven hardware filers on that number shows who funds growth: brands whose suppliers carry the float sit at the bottom with negative cycles; equipment and component makers who carry more inventory sit at the top with long positive ones.

Every figure uses year-end balances and that fiscal year’s revenue and cost of revenue. Fiscal year-ends differ, so the table is a cross-section of latest filings, not a single calendar year.

Seven Filers, Ranked by Cash Conversion Cycle

Arista’s 253 days of inventory dominate its 256-day cycle. Apple’s 9 days of inventory and 115 days of payables produce -71 days. The mechanism behind those signs is in Negative Cash Conversion Cycles in Hardware.

Jabil’s Six Days After Receivables Sold

Jabil’s FY2025 cycle of 6 days looks like a near-zero float. The filing also shows about $1.3B of receivables sold ($927M + $372M). Those sales shrink the receivables balance that enters DSO, so the filed cycle is shorter than the gross book would be.

That matters for any peer table that treats DSO as a pure operating choice. For a contract manufacturer, part of the short cycle can be a financing choice. The margin and return-on-capital side of that model is in EMS Economics: Thin Margins and ROIC.

How to Read the Ladder

The ladder ranks an operating funding structure. A long positive cycle means growth absorbs cash in inventory and receivables unless payables stretch to match. A negative cycle means supplier terms and thin inventory can fund growth, until purchase commitments or a demand drop reverse the cash story.

Seagate at 36 days sits in the middle of the set: enough inventory for a component maker, offset by payables near 96 days. Amphenol and Cisco sit higher because inventory days stay elevated relative to payables. Each rank is a filed operating fact for the fiscal year shown.

Where the Ranking Goes Wrong

Mixing fiscal years without labels is the first error. Apple’s FY2025 and Cisco’s FY2026 are both “latest” and still not the same period.

Treating Jabil’s 6 days as comparable to Apple’s -71 without the receivables-sold footnote is the second. One is a brand with thin inventory and long payables; the other is an EMS that has sold a slice of its receivable book.

The third is ignoring off-balance-sheet purchase commitments: inventory on the balance sheet can be a fraction of the obligations in the notes. Purchase Commitments vs Inventory in Hardware puts those two figures side by side.