BackInternational Business Machines Overview

International Business Machines Receivables

Track International Business Machines's receivables ($14B) with charts, peers, and YoY trends.

Get informed when a big investor buys or sells

+ Follow
Receivables
$14.05B
4.11% YoYΔ $555.00M vs prior year quarter

Peer average

Loading

International Business Machines Receivables History

Loading

International Business Machines vs. peers: Receivables Comparison

Loading

International Business Machines Receivables Growth (YoY per quarter)

Latest change versus the prior comparable period (same company).

Loading

International Business Machines (IBM) FAQ

International Business Machines posts a receivables of $14B as of June 2026. That compares with $13B in the prior-year period — up 4.1% year over year. Comparing that reading with peers and prior periods is usually more useful than looking at the number in isolation.

In the prior comparable period, International Business Machines's receivables was $13B. The latest reading is $14B — a 4.1% year-over-year increase (period ending June 2026). Use the history and growth charts on this page for a longer lookback.

Receivables is one piece of International Business Machines's financial statement story. At $14B, it should be interpreted next to related metrics — for example revenue with costs, assets with liabilities, or income with margins. Stockcircle links those related pages so you can move from this number to the surrounding context quickly.

Context for IBM's receivables usually means three checks: (1) trend versus prior periods, (2) level versus peers, and (3) consistency with growth and profitability. This page covers the first two; International Business Machines's other metric pages and overview cover the third.

Judging International Business Machines against Technology peers is usually better than using a market-wide rule of thumb. Business models inside Technology are more comparable, which makes gaps in receivables easier to interpret. Start with $14B here, then scan peer and history charts to see if the gap is persistent.