The most useful way to compare LTM vs Mphasis is not by revenue growth alone.

The bigger structural question is:

How much concentration risk should investors accept in exchange for specialist growth?

Mphasis has built a deep franchise in banking and insurance.

LTM has deliberately evolved toward a broader revenue mix.

For related Bull Run research, see LTM / legacy LTIMindtree stock page, Mphasis, How to Analyse IT Services Stocks, HCLTech vs LTM and LTM vs Persistent Systems.

Q1 FY27 operating comparison

The concentration gap is enormous

Mphasis reported approximately:

• ₹2,355 crore of Banking/Financial Services segment revenue,
• ₹666 crore of Insurance segment revenue,
• ₹4,384 crore of total consolidated revenue.

Combining BFS and Insurance gives roughly:

₹3,021 crore.

Dividing that by ₹4,384 crore gives:

approximately 68.9%.

This is a Bull Run analytical grouping.

Mphasis itself reports BFS and Insurance separately rather than publishing one combined 68.9% BFSI statistic.

LTM's 34% Financial Services mix is much more diversified

LTM's Q1 revenue mix was approximately:

This mix means weakness in one vertical has less ability to dominate consolidated performance.

Why BFSI concentration is not automatically bad

Financial services is one of the world's largest technology-spending industries.

Banks and insurers require continuous investment in:

• core modernisation,
• payments,
• fraud systems,
• regulatory technology,
• risk platforms,
• data architecture,
• AI-driven decisioning.

A specialist can often win more sophisticated mandates because it understands industry workflows better than a generic technology supplier.

Mphasis is currently benefiting from that expertise

Management commentary for Q1 showed:

• BFS Direct revenue +9.4% YoY CC,
• Insurance Direct revenue +17.8% YoY CC,
• BFS maintaining an eight-quarter compound quarterly growth rate above 3.5%.

This suggests Mphasis's concentration is currently a growth driver rather than a drag.

The risk appears when financial-services budgets slow together

A concentrated business is more exposed to:

• bank technology-budget reductions,
• capital-markets volatility,
• mortgage and lending cycles,
• insurance transformation delays,
• large financial-client concentration.

LTM has more vertical diversification to absorb these shocks.

Mphasis currently has the faster growth rate

Mphasis Q1 revenue was approximately $471 million.

Constant-currency growth was:

• 8.3% YoY,
• 2.1% QoQ.

Direct revenue was approximately $465 million and grew:

• 9.9% YoY CC,
• 2.2% QoQ CC.

The Direct business now represents nearly the entire company.

Direct revenue matters because legacy channels have largely faded

Mphasis has historically separated Direct business from other channels.

At $465 million out of approximately $471 million total revenue, Direct is now roughly 99% of quarterly dollars analytically.

The remaining legacy-channel effect is therefore increasingly immaterial.

LTM is slower, but still healthy for its larger base

LTM grew:

• 6.4% YoY in constant currency,
• 6.1% in reported dollars,
• roughly 0.3% sequentially CC.

The sequential number was modest.

But LTM is roughly 2.6 times Mphasis's quarterly dollar revenue.

Maintaining mid-single-digit growth becomes harder as the denominator expands.

Mphasis expects growth to accelerate further

Management maintained FY27 guidance of:

high-single-digit to low-double-digit constant-currency growth.

It also indicated Q2 could deliver the strongest sequential CC growth in roughly three years.

This is a significant forward signal.

The company has already been building capacity ahead of that expected ramp.

That capacity build pressured Q1 margin

Mphasis EBIT margin was approximately 14.8%.

It declined roughly 60 basis points sequentially.

Drivers included:

• large-deal ramp-up costs,
• capacity built ahead of future growth,
• lower utilisation,
• acquisition-related expenses.

Management retained FY27 operating-margin guidance of approximately 14.75–15.75%.

LTM has the higher current margin and positive direction

LTM reported a 15.5% EBIT margin.

That increased around:

• 40 bps sequentially,
• 120 bps year on year.

LTM therefore wins both:

• current margin level,
• recent margin direction.

The margin comparison may narrow if Mphasis's Q2 ramp works

Mphasis is effectively sacrificing some near-term utilisation and profitability to prepare for contract ramp-ups.

If revenue accelerates while utilisation improves, margin can recover toward the middle or upper half of its guidance range.

If growth disappoints, the capacity build becomes an earnings drag.

Deal momentum is healthy at both companies

LTM reported $1.68 billion of Q1 order inflow.

Mphasis reported $461 million of net-new TCV.

Absolute booking scale therefore strongly favours LTM.

But Mphasis's result is impressive relative to its smaller revenue base.

Mphasis has now crossed $400 million of TCV for five consecutive quarters

That consistency is more important than a single strong quarter.

Management reported:

• $461 million net-new Q1 TCV,
• three large deals,
• one deal above $100 million,
• trailing-12-month TCV above $1.8 billion.

This supports management's confidence in FY27 growth.

AI is embedded differently in the two sales engines

LTM reports approximately:

$150 million of quarterly pure-AI revenue.

Management described that as roughly 12% of revenue under its narrower pure-AI definition.

Mphasis instead reported:

63% of Q1 TCV wins were AI-led.

It also said around 70% of its pipeline was AI-led.

Revenue and TCV percentages must not be compared directly

LTM's AI statistic answers:

“How much current quarterly revenue comes from pure AI?”

Mphasis's statistic answers:

“How much new contract value signed in the quarter is AI-led?”

Those are different points in the commercial funnel.

Mphasis AI-led bookings could become future revenue

The 63% AI-led share of Q1 TCV is therefore a leading indicator.

If the contracts ramp successfully, future revenue should become increasingly AI-influenced.

Mphasis also said 70% of its pipeline is AI-led, up significantly from the early Mphasis.ai period.

LTM has stronger evidence of AI monetisation today

LTM's advantage is that the $150-million number is already revenue.

It is not pipeline.

It is not contract value.

It has already passed through the delivery and revenue-recognition process.

Mphasis uses AI as a platform-led differentiation strategy

The company has built its positioning around:

• Mphasis.ai,
• NeoIP,
• AI-powered Tribes,
• modernisation,
• decision intelligence,
• Everything-as-a-Platform.

Management says AI-led opportunities now span different verticals and deal sizes rather than relying on one isolated category.

LTM's AI strategy is broader across industries

LTM has framed its AI approach around:

• Creative AI,
• Business AI,
• Industrial AI,
• Enterprise AI.

Its broader industry mix provides more opportunities to apply AI beyond financial services.

North America concentration remains high at LTM

LTM generated approximately 73.9% of Q1 revenue from North America.

That means vertical diversification does not eliminate geographic concentration.

LTM's business is diversified by industry but still heavily dependent on North American enterprise technology spending.

Mphasis is also heavily Americas-led

Management described the Americas as its primary growth engine, with Direct Americas revenue growing 11.4% YoY CC.

The exact geographic revenue mix used by the companies is not identical, so this article does not manufacture a precise apples-to-apples percentage.

Valuation is surprisingly close

Mphasis trades at only a modest P/E discount to LTM.

That is notable because Mphasis is:

• smaller,
• more concentrated in financial services,
• currently lower margin.

The market appears to be rewarding its faster growth and AI-led deal momentum.

LTM's higher P/B is partly supported by higher returns

Bull Run's fresh fundamentals show approximately:

• LTM ROE: 21.48%,
• LTM ROCE: 27.14%,
• Mphasis ROE: 18.29%,
• Mphasis ROCE: 24.41%.

LTM therefore currently produces somewhat stronger returns on shareholder and employed capital.

Mphasis has a higher dividend yield

Bull Run's August 25 Mphasis snapshot showed a dividend yield around 2.65%.

Fresh external data around August 31 placed it near 2.5%.

Income is not the core thesis for either company, but Mphasis has historically returned meaningful cash through dividends.

Bull Run market snapshot for Mphasis

LTM technical-data caveat

Bull Run's new LTM row contains current June 2026 fundamentals but corrupted technical price fields after the company's symbol/name transition.

The legacy LTIMindtree row has usable older technical data but stale financials.

This article therefore uses fresh external August 31 pricing for LTM and Bull Run's fresh fundamental ROE/ROCE fields.

Which has better current growth?

Mphasis.

8.3% YoY CC versus LTM at 6.4%.

Which has stronger sequential momentum?

Mphasis.

2.1% QoQ CC versus LTM around 0.3%.

Which has the higher EBIT margin?

LTM.

15.5% versus Mphasis around 14.8%.

Which has better diversification?

LTM by a wide margin.

Financial Services represents about 34% of LTM revenue versus roughly 69% broad Banking/Financial Services plus Insurance exposure at Mphasis analytically.

Which has greater BFSI specialisation?

Mphasis.

Financial services has been central to its competitive identity for decades.

Which has the larger absolute deal engine?

LTM.

$1.68 billion of Q1 order inflow versus Mphasis at $461 million of net-new TCV.

Which has more consistent recent deal wins relative to its smaller size?

Mphasis is strong on this measure.

Q1 was its fifth consecutive quarter above $400 million of net-new TCV.

Which has clearer AI revenue monetisation?

LTM.

It reports approximately $150 million of current pure-AI quarterly revenue.

Which has stronger AI-led future bookings?

Mphasis provides the clearer booking statistic.

63% of Q1 TCV and roughly 70% of pipeline were AI-led.

Which is cheaper?

Mphasis slightly.

Approximately 24.5x trailing earnings versus LTM around 26.5x at the end of August.

LTM vs Mphasis: category-by-category

Which is stronger in 2026?

LTM currently has the more balanced risk-adjusted business profile.

It combines:

• greater scale,
• a broader industry mix,
• 15.5% EBIT margin,
• $1.68 billion of Q1 order inflow,
• roughly $150 million of pure-AI quarterly revenue,
• higher current ROE.

Mphasis has the sharper near-term growth acceleration story.

It combines:

• 8.3% CC growth,
• 9.9% Direct CC growth,
• five consecutive $400-million-plus TCV quarters,
• 63% AI-led Q1 bookings,
• an all-time-high pipeline,
• a slightly lower P/E.

The trade-off is concentration.

LTM = larger diversified AI-centric IT platform with better margin and broader revenue sources.

Mphasis = smaller BFSI specialist with faster current growth and strong AI-led bookings, but much greater sector concentration.

What to monitor next

• LTM Financial Services growth: its largest vertical should improve without increasing concentration materially.
• LTM EBIT margin: continued expansion strengthens earnings quality.
• LTM AI revenue: monitor growth from the $150-million quarterly pure-AI run-rate.
• LTM sequential CC growth: acceleration from 0.3% would improve momentum.
• Mphasis Q2 growth: management expects its strongest sequential CC growth in roughly three years.
• Mphasis BFS growth: financial services remains the most important engine.
• Mphasis Insurance: strong YoY growth but sequential volatility should be watched.
• Mphasis EBIT margin: capacity and deal-ramp costs need to normalise.
• Mphasis AI-led TCV: 63% of bookings should eventually convert to revenue.
• Mphasis pipeline: management says approximately 70% is AI-led.

Frequently asked questions