Science Applications International Shareholders: Ownership Structure, Brands, and Acquisition History
Last updated: October 2026Ownership Structure
Ownership Analysis
SAIC has no controlling shareholder, so board oversight rather than a founder or sponsor directs the business. BlackRock’s reported 10.1% stake and Fuller & Thaler’s 6.1% were the largest identified institutional positions in the 2026 proxy, but neither gives its holder authority to choose contract strategy. This structure suits a contractor that must make recurring decisions about classified investment, bid costs and staff capacity before awards become revenue. It also creates pressure to convert public-sector visibility into reliable margins and free cash flow. The company generated $7.262 billion in fiscal 2026 revenue, yet its FY27 guidance after Q2 called for $7.2–$7.3 billion with organic growth around flat to negative 2%. That contrast argues for focusing on execution, not the headline backlog. SAIC’s $22.1 billion backlog includes $3.8 billion funded; unfunded awards and contract ceilings require task orders and appropriations, and can be delayed or reduced. A shareholder cannot force an agency to issue a task order, but the board can decide how much labor and capital to commit before one arrives. Capital allocation can be assessed by the board’s capital allocation by comparing cash returned through dividends and buybacks with the investment needed to retain cleared engineers and modernize secure delivery. In fiscal 2026, SAIC generated $577 million in free cash flow and repurchased about $422 million of shares, demonstrating capacity for substantial distributions. Repurchases can support per-share value when the stock is discounted, but sustained buybacks cannot compensate for weak contract growth. when the stock is discounted, but sustained repurchases cannot compensate for weak contract growth indefinitely. The 2026 appointment of Jim Reagan as permanent CEO creates an opportunity to improve consistency after leadership turnover. Public holders should press for measurable organic growth and funded backlog conversion, while avoiding incentives that reward low-quality contract wins. Control is dispersed, but operational judgment is concentrated in executives whose decisions shape the company’s ability to preserve margins and customer trust.
Direct Owners
Institutional Shareholders
Shareholder Analysis
SAIC’s shareholder register is diversified enough that no institution can dictate strategy, yet large managers can shape governance outcomes. BlackRock held 10.1% and Fuller & Thaler 6.1% in the 2026 proxy. Their positions represent voting weight, not necessarily an active thesis on individual contract bids or the timing of workforce reductions. The distinction matters because public-market ownership can appear stable while the investor base changes quickly after earnings, guidance or government-policy news. SAIC’s share price is sensitive to book-to-bill, margin, organic growth and cash flow rather than traditional consumer demand indicators. In Q2 FY27, revenue grew 6% and adjusted EBITDA margin was 10.3%, but net bookings were only $1.2 billion, a 0.6 book-to-bill. On a trailing basis, book-to-bill was 0.8. A prudent shareholder reads these numbers together: current execution can be sound even as future workload replenishment falls short of revenue run rate. With 23,000 employees and a specialized government customer base, aggressive cost reductions can impair bid competitiveness or delivery long before a quarterly margin benefit fades. Compensation metrics should balance organic growth for a balanced emphasis on organic growth, funded backlog, cash conversion and contract quality. A board focused solely on adjusted earnings could favor share repurchases over investment in talent or proprietary delivery tools. Fiscal 2026 cash generation was strong at $577 million free cash flow, supporting $422 million of buybacks and $70 million in dividends. That allocation was defensible while the business produced cash, but the company must still replenish awards. Management’s FY27 guidance increase after Q2 was encouraging, though flat-to-negative organic-growth expectations remained a constraint. Institutional stewardship should focus on whether directors challenge management’s pipeline assumptions and talent strategy, not simply whether the company meets a margin target. For minority shareholders, a dispersed register means the quality of disclosure and board independence are the main protections against empire-building or underinvestment. A low market valuation can make repurchases attractive; it can also signal skepticism about future contract wins that capital returns alone will not resolve.
Brands, Subsidiaries & Companies Owned
| Name | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| SilverEdge Government Solutions | Subsidiary | Cyber and intelligence services acquired in 2025 |
Portfolio Analysis
SAIC does not own consumer brands in the conventional sense. Its business is organized around service capabilities and customer missions: Defense and Intelligence work covers secure IT, engineering and technical services, while Civilian supports government technology modernization and operations. These units are better understood as delivery platforms than as separately marketed subsidiaries. The company’s reputation with federal agencies, systems integration experience and cleared workforce are the assets behind its name. A strong record can create switching costs because mission systems are complex and handoffs carry security, schedule and continuity risk. Those advantages are not absolute: contracts are recompeted, agencies can insource work or split awards, and a competitor can win with a lower-cost technical proposal. SilverEdge Government Solutions added a more specific cyber and intelligence capability in 2025, but investors should distinguish a named acquired subsidiary from the company’s main operating segments. The acquisition contributed about $20 million of Q2 FY27 revenue and $27 million for FY26, a modest share of SAIC’s $7.26 billion base. That scale gives SilverEdge access to a large customer and contracting platform, while SAIC gains specialized expertise. The acquisition earns its place if the added team improves bid access, fills a capability gap and retains technical leaders—not by revenue consolidation alone. The two-segment structure also directs capital toward different demand cycles. Defense and intelligence contracts can benefit from geopolitical priorities and classified technology requirements, while civilian agencies may face different budget and modernization constraints. This portfolio mix can buffer a downturn in one agency group, but both remain tied to federal appropriations and procurement rules. SAIC’s reputation is best measured through the strength of SAIC’s “brand” through recompete win rates, customer satisfaction, security performance and employee retention. In this market, credibility is earned through delivery. A large contract ceiling or a high-profile award is not itself evidence of durable competitive advantage; funded tasks, successful performance and repeat business are what turn capabilities into economic value.
Market Share & Competitors
| Company | Market Share | Revenue | Key Strength |
|---|---|---|---|
| Science Applications International ★ | N/A | $7.26B | Federal mission technology, engineering and systems integration |
| Leidos | N/A | undisclosed | Scale across defense, intelligence and civil programs |
| CACI International | N/A | undisclosed | National security IT and mission expertise |
| Booz Allen Hamilton | N/A | undisclosed | Consulting, analytics and cyber capabilities |
| Parsons Corporation | N/A | undisclosed | Engineering, infrastructure and defense technology |
Competitive Analysis
SAIC competes with Leidos, CACI, Booz Allen Hamilton, Parsons and many specialist contractors for federal technology and engineering programs. It is not meaningful to assign a single market-share percentage across the defense, intelligence and civilian contracting markets; contract scope, agency budgets and security requirements fragment the addressable market. SAIC’s $7.26 billion FY26 revenue places it among substantial federal service providers, but scale is only one factor in contract selection. The company needs a qualified workforce, proven performance, security clearances, pricing discipline and access to contract vehicles. The 23,000-employee base gives it capacity to execute large programs, while labor cost and clearance availability constrain margin expansion. Backlog at $22.1 billion indicates awarded work, but only $3.8 billion was funded at Q2 FY27 year-end. This distinction makes book-to-bill and task order flow important early-warning measures. A contractor can appear well positioned by total contract ceilings yet suffer when the government delays task orders, changes scope or reduces appropriations. Q2 FY27 revenue of $1.88 billion rose 6% and adjusted EBITDA margin was 10.3%, but a 0.6 quarterly book-to-bill ratio suggested the need to replenish contracts. The positive data point was the increase in full-year guidance to $7.2–$7.3 billion, reflecting strong year-to-date performance. Still, organic growth was expected around flat to negative 2%, so acquisition contribution and contract timing need careful separation. Competition also occurs at the labor market: specialist engineers and cyber professionals can move between contractors, and wage inflation can erode fixed-price margins. Peer analysis belongs at the contract level, where we can examine SAIC’s performance by customer segment, recompete rate, funded backlog growth, free cash conversion and labor utilization. It can differentiate through integration of mission IT, engineering and secure operations, but it cannot rely on a broad corporate name alone. The durable edge is the combination of customer trust and execution on sensitive programs. If delivery quality slips or proposal economics become too aggressive, rivals can take share at the next recompete.
Acquisitions
| Company Acquired | Deal Value | Year | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| SilverEdge Government Solutions | $203M | 2025 | Added cyber, intelligence and national security expertise |
Acquisitions Analysis
SAIC’s acquisition strategy is selective and capability-led. The 2025 purchase of SilverEdge Government Solutions for approximately $203 million added cyber, intelligence and national-security expertise that complements SAIC’s established federal customer relationships. The deal is small relative to a $7.26 billion revenue base, so the investment case is not immediate scale. It is whether SilverEdge’s people and technical credentials help SAIC pursue work that would otherwise be inaccessible, improve its position on recompetes or raise the value of existing contracts. Early revenue contribution was measurable but modest: $27 million in fiscal 2026 and about $20 million in Q2 FY27. Acquired sales should not be mistaken for that acquired growth as evidence of broad organic recovery, especially when the company’s own guidance projected little to negative organic growth for FY27. The key asset is talent, and talent retention can be fragile after a transaction if reporting lines, clearance support or entrepreneurial autonomy change. Acquisition accounting can recognize goodwill, but customer access and execution capability are realized only through winning funded work. SAIC’s acquisition discipline should therefore include post-close checks on employee retention, contract pipeline conversion, margin contribution and integration cost. A services company can destroy value by paying for anticipated contract access that does not materialize, or by disrupting the technical team whose reputation supported the purchase. Earlier large corporate transformations, including the 2013 split that created Leidos as a separate company, are not ordinary acquisitions and should be analyzed as structural portfolio choices. Compared with a transformational merger, SilverEdge extends capability within the existing operating model and carries lower balance-sheet risk. Restraint matters in a business where contract cash flows can be affected by shutdowns and recompetes. We would support further tuck-ins when they address a clear skill gap, have identifiable customer demand and can be integrated without excessive dilution or leverage. If the company instead uses M&A to compensate for weak organic bookings, investors should demand a higher return threshold. The transaction record suggests capability augmentation is the intended model; disciplined execution must prove the premium paid is earned.
Acquisition Timeline
Merger & Spin-off History
Merger & Spin-off Analysis
SAIC’s most consequential structural event was the 2013 separation of its legacy business into two publicly traded companies. The government services operation retained the SAIC name, while the national-security, technology and engineering business became Leidos. This was a portfolio separation rather than a standard merger: it allowed investors to value distinct customer mixes and management strategies independently. It also reset the company’s scale and identity. Today’s Science Applications International is the successor to the continuing SAIC business, not the same broad conglomerate that existed before the split. That history helps explain why the name can be confused with Leidos, a separate competitor, and why an ownership tree should not depict one as a parent of the other. The 2013 transaction created strategic focus but did not eliminate the trade-offs of federal contracting. SAIC still relies on contract renewals, appropriations and labor capacity. Its 2025 SilverEdge purchase represents a different form of change: an acquisition of specialized cyber capabilities that fits inside the company rather than a separation of a major business. The later return to the Science Applications International Corporation name in 2024 aligned the formal corporate identity with the familiar SAIC brand. The shareholder case for this separation depends on the original separation by whether each company could pursue a clearer strategy and allocate capital to the capabilities its customers valued. The present company’s $22.1 billion Q2 FY27 backlog and strong cash generation show the continuing scale of a focused contractor, while modest organic growth guidance shows focus does not automatically produce growth. Mergers or spinoffs can unlock value when operations have different investment needs or investor bases; they can also create stranded costs and brand confusion. The key is to analyze each corporate entity from its own formation date and results. For current shareholders, Leidos is a peer, not a legacy subsidiary. For readers tracing company history, the split marks the boundary between the pre-2013 conglomerate and the current public services company.
Ownership History
Ownership History Analysis
SAIC began in 1969 as a scientific and engineering company founded by J. Robert Beyster, with an employee-oriented culture that helped attract technical talent. It became a public company in 2006, broadening access to capital while exposing it to market expectations around profitability and shareholder returns. The 2013 separation created two independent issuers, leaving SAIC with a more concentrated government services profile and giving the other business the Leidos name. That break is essential to understanding today’s revenue and ownership; historical figures from the pre-split corporation cannot be compared directly without adjustment. Since then, the company has shifted from an employee-founded identity to a conventional public shareholder model. No family or founder controls the board today. The 2024 restoration of the Science Applications International Corporation name reinforced the heritage while aligning the legal entity and SAIC brand. A period of executive turnover in fiscal 2026 followed departures and transition costs, after which Jim Reagan became permanent chief executive. This matters because federal contracting is relationship- and execution-intensive; leadership consistency affects both the workforce and customer confidence. Current shareholders are institutional, with BlackRock and Fuller & Thaler among the largest reported holders, but board and management retain strategic discretion. Recent results present a mixed trajectory: revenue fell 3% in FY26 to $7.262 billion, even as free cash flow increased to $577 million and adjusted EBITDA margin rose to 9.7%. In FY27, Q2 growth and raised guidance offered improvement, but low book-to-bill and largely unfunded backlog caution against extrapolating the quarter. We would read SAIC’s history as a sequence of focus and adaptation rather than uninterrupted expansion. The firm has repeatedly changed its corporate perimeter to serve distinct investor and customer needs. Going forward, shareholder value depends on disciplined rebuilding of organic growth, not simply preserving legacy scale or continuing share repurchases. The strongest sign of progress would be a sustained recovery in funded awards, recompete performance and employee retention under stable leadership.
Ownership Explained
Science Applications International is a publicly traded federal technology contractor, not a government-owned enterprise or a subsidiary of a defense prime. Its shareholders elect the board, while the board and executive team make decisions about contract bids, workforce investment, acquisitions and capital returns. BlackRock’s 10.1% and Fuller & Thaler’s 6.1% holdings, as reported in the 2026 proxy, create meaningful voting influence without a controlling block. SAIC trades on Nasdaq under SAIC and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia. Its principal economic asset is its workforce and its ability to win, staff and execute secure contracts for defense, intelligence and civilian agencies. Revenue reached $7.262 billion in fiscal 2026, yet the current year’s trajectory shows why scale alone is not the thesis: FY27 revenue guidance was raised to $7.2–$7.3 billion after the second quarter, but organic growth was still expected to range from approximately flat to negative 2%. In the quarter ended July 31, 2026, revenue rose 6% to $1.88 billion, with 5.3% organic growth, and adjusted EBITDA margin was 10.3%. Backlog reached $22.1 billion, but only $3.8 billion was funded; the balance is not booked cash flow because task orders, options and appropriations govern conversion. of backlog, of which only $3.8 billion was funded; the remainder is not equivalent to booked cash flow because task orders, options and appropriations govern conversion. The ownership question turns on the contract-to-cash cycle. A public float allows SAIC to repurchase stock and pay dividends, but those uses of cash compete with hiring, classified infrastructure and bid investment. The $203 million SilverEdge acquisition added cyber and intelligence capabilities, but acquired growth should not obscure organic contract trends. This is a mature services operator with attractive visibility and modest physical capital needs, yet exposed to recompetes, contract timing, government shutdowns and wage inflation. Shareholders own a business whose durable value depends less on patents or consumer brands than on cleared talent, contract performance and disciplined pursuit selection.
Public ownership gives SAIC access to equity capital and a liquid currency for selective acquisitions, while leaving strategic control with a board accountable to a broad shareholder base. No individual owner can force rapid divestitures or direct contract selection. to force rapid divestitures or direct contract selection. A patient capital base can support workforce and customer investment, although investors still expect predictable margins and cash returns. and customer approach, although investors still expect predictable margins and cash returns. The distinction between the company’s $22.1 billion of backlog and its funded portion is central for customers and shareholders. Only $3.8 billion was funded at the end of Q2 FY27; the rest depends on task orders, options, agency budgets and contract execution. Management can report a strong pipeline while near-term revenue remains vulnerable to government timing. The second-quarter performance—$1.88 billion in revenue, 10.3% adjusted EBITDA margin and $131 million of free cash flow—suggested operating leverage, but net bookings of $1.2 billion produced a 0.6 quarterly book-to-bill ratio and 0.8 trailing ratio. A single quarter is insufficient to establish one quarter as proof of a sustained growth recovery. For employees, the ownership structure affects how aggressively the company balances wage competitiveness with share repurchases. Specialized engineers, cybersecurity professionals and cleared staff are difficult to replace; underinvesting in retention can jeopardize contract performance and future awards. Public shareholders may favor buybacks when organic growth is slow, yet every dollar used for repurchases is unavailable for training, systems or a strategic acquisition. The permanent CEO appointment of Jim Reagan in 2026 followed executive departures and transition costs, making leadership credibility relevant to contract execution. Customer trust rests on security, delivery and compliance, which can be damaged by cost cuts that look efficient in quarterly statements. The operating scorecard should include funded backlog, recompete win rates, labor utilization, clearance retention, free cash conversion and leverage alongside earnings. SAIC’s ownership model is conventional; the business consequences are not. The public market provides capital discipline, while the federal procurement system—not shareholders—ultimately determines whether the company can convert its capabilities into profitable work.