Internet Infrastructure FY2026 Full Year: IIJ grows, GMO wins on margins
Companies compared · 2

IIJ
3774

GMO
9449
Takeaway
IIJ led on growth, while GMO led on profitability.
The Internet Infrastructure group grew sales and profit in FY2026: IIJ revenue rose 9.0%, against GMO’s 3.3%. GMO’s 20.7% operating margin beat IIJ’s 10.1%, underscoring IIJ’s growth and GMO’s earnings power, though fiscal periods differ.
Industry trends
Both companies posted higher sales and profit, reflecting resilient demand. Their results alone, however, are not enough to draw conclusions about the entire industry.
- Corporate digital transformation and network upgrades are providing a tailwind. IIJ’s revenue rose 9.0% year on year, outpacing GMO’s 3.3% increase. Corporate efforts to renew communications and IT infrastructure supported IIJ’s growth.
- Recurring monthly revenue is another focus. IIJ’s monthly recurring revenue from subscription services increased 12.0% year on year, faster than its 9.0% overall sales growth. Recurring income is helping drive expansion.
- Higher-value services lifted earnings. Operating profit rose 19.5% at GMO and 15.7% at IIJ, outpacing sales growth at both companies.
- AI infrastructure demand is opening new opportunities. IIJ won a large GPU project overseas, as demand for AI-related facilities expands alongside traditional networking and systems integration.
Revenue ranking
IIJ generated more revenue than GMO. It also achieved faster year-on-year growth, benefiting from corporate network upgrades and digital transformation demand.
Operating profit ranking
GMO’s operating profit was well above IIJ’s. IIJ had the larger revenue base, but GMO was more efficient at generating profit.
Operating margin ranking
GMO’s operating margin was about twice IIJ’s. Its internet infrastructure and financial businesses helped it overcome IIJ’s larger revenue scale.
Winner and loser
GMO led in its ability to generate profit. Operating profit came to ¥59.1 billion, topping IIJ’s ¥34.8 billion. GMO’s year-on-year increase of 19.5% also exceeded IIJ’s 15.7%.
GMO’s operating margin was 20.7%, well above IIJ’s 10.1%. IIJ had the larger revenue base, at ¥345.4 billion compared with GMO’s ¥285.3 billion, but GMO was more efficient at turning sales into profit.
IIJ led on growth. Revenue rose 9.0% year on year, ahead of GMO’s 3.3% increase. Net income growth was also stronger at IIJ, at 21.3%, versus 12.8% at GMO.
IIJ’s relative weakness was its lower profit margin. But it still delivered growth in both sales and profit, and did not have a poor performance. The takeaway this period: IIJ led on growth, while GMO led on profitability.
Winner
GMO
Laggard
IIJ
Year-on-year revenue growth
IIJ’s revenue grew faster than GMO’s. Corporate digital transformation and network upgrades, along with rising recurring revenue, supported the increase.
Year-on-year net income growth
IIJ’s net income growth exceeded GMO’s. IIJ also recorded a one-time gain from a change to its employee retirement benefit plan, which should be distinguished from recurring earnings.
Strategic moves to watch
IIJ captured demand for corporate networks and systems integration. Monthly recurring revenue from network services and operations and maintenance rose 12.0% year on year, outpacing the 9.0% increase in overall sales.
Its systems integration order backlog more than doubled year on year, making it an important forward indicator for sales. The large overseas GPU project is another move to tap AI demand. Operating profit also included a one-time gain of ¥1.17 billion from a change to the employee retirement benefit plan.
GMO expanded profit through its internet infrastructure and financial businesses. Operating profit rose 19.5% year on year, ahead of IIJ’s 15.7% increase. Its annual dividend increased to ¥52.0 from ¥41.8 in the previous year.
GMO adopted IFRS for the first time this period, so comparisons with prior years require attention to accounting changes. The companies also have different fiscal year-ends: March for IIJ and December for GMO.
Common industry risks
Even as demand grows, investment burdens and competition can erode profits. Key risks include:
- Capital spending and power costs. Expanding networks and AI-focused GPU capacity can drive up equipment and electricity costs. A slower payoff on investment could weigh on margins.
- Hiring and labor costs. Companies are competing for specialists in areas such as security and cloud computing. Persistent hiring difficulties and wage increases could raise operating costs.
- Cyberattacks and data leaks. Disruptions to communications or IT infrastructure can affect customers’ businesses. Stronger defenses create demand, but also require spending.
- Price competition and the growing presence of major cloud providers. Prices for general-purpose services are easy to compare. Without a clear edge in operations or security, providers risk margin pressure.
- Volatility in financial businesses and new investments. Finance is a major profit driver for GMO, but it is exposed to market conditions and regulation. Balancing it with the stable earnings of infrastructure businesses is key.
What job seekers should know
The industry needs expertise not only in network operations but also in digital transformation, security and AI infrastructure. IIJ’s 12.0% growth in recurring revenue suggests demand continues after services are installed, through ongoing operations and upgrades.
GMO, with a 20.7% operating margin, and IIJ, with 9.0% revenue growth, have different strengths. Job seekers should consider whether they want to support stable operations or work on new services and large-scale projects, and look closely at each company’s business lines and technology areas.
