The Real Power Behind Fortune 100 Companies: Revenue, Reach, and the Workers Who Make It Happen

Standing in a Bentonville, Arkansas, Walmart parking lot and realizing that the store in front of you is owned by a company that generates almost $681 billion in revenue annually is almost surreal. Not millions. billions. There were 681 of them.

When you stop to consider what that truly represents—millions of transactions, millions of workers, and millions of decisions occurring daily across thousands of locations—the numbers are nearly too big to have any significance. It’s difficult to dispute Walmart’s position at the top of the Fortune 100 list for 2025. The scope is just astounding.

Beyond the raw revenue numbers, the Fortune 100 list is truly fascinating because of what it shows about the current state of the American economy. Healthcare businesses have stealthily risen to the top. With $400 billion in revenue, UnitedHealth Group is ranked third, and CVS Health is not far behind at number five.

The fact that the healthcare industry is near the top of this list speaks volumes about the flow of money in this nation and raises unsettling questions about what it means when maintaining people’s health becomes one of the most profitable sectors of the global economy.

And there’s Nvidia. With $130 billion in revenue and an astounding 114.2% revenue growth rate, the company, ranked number 31, almost seems to belong in a different discussion. The majority of the businesses on this list experienced modest growth; some saw no growth at all, while others saw a decline. Nvidia more than doubled.

That one figure may be the best representation of the current state of technology among all the numbers on the Fortune 100 list. The AI boom is no longer just theoretical. Nvidia is the most tangible example of how it’s manifesting itself in earnings reports.

Boeing, on the other hand, is at the bottom of the top 100 with the biggest decline in revenue among major players, at 14.5%. The contrast is difficult to ignore. While one of the oldest and most illustrious manufacturers in American history is struggling with production issues, safety scrutiny, and a workforce that has quit, another company is doubling its revenue on the wave of artificial intelligence. There is no editorial content on the Fortune 100. All it does is print the numbers. However, the data presents a compelling narrative.

In recent years, it has become more difficult to overlook the workplace component of this list. A different but related award, the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For, is receiving a lot of attention, in part because the requirements are stricter than they appear. The company that developed the methodology, Great Place To Work, makes all of its decisions based on employee input rather than executive judgment or public relations materials.

As the only commercial airline in the top ten, Delta Air Lines was ranked ninth on this year’s list of the Best Companies to Work For. That’s a significant distinction for a business that operates in a sector known for labor conflict and demanding schedules. Ed Bastian, the CEO of Delta, has publicly discussed the company’s “people-first culture,” and employees appear to concur, at least enough to indicate this in surveys.

Ryan, a multinational tax services company, was ranked 37th on the same workplace list for the ninth year in a row. It’s not a coincidence that nine years have passed. Businesses that achieve that level of consistency seem to have created something structural rather than merely promotional. Investing in people and holding leadership responsible for that investment is how Chairman G. Brint Ryan put it. It sounds easy. Apparently, it’s uncommon enough to merit discussion.

Looking at all 100 companies, the overall picture is one of extreme concentration. There are 2.1 million workers at Walmart. 1.5 million people work at Amazon. More than 3.6 million jobs—more than the population of many American cities—are created by these two companies alone. There is actual significance to that employment concentration.

No policy paper can adequately describe the ripple effects that occur throughout communities when either of those companies makes decisions regarding wages, benefits, or working conditions. Although it’s still unclear if that kind of scale eventually helps employees or subtly restricts their options, it’s a question worth considering.

It’s also important to note the financial sector’s ongoing dominance. Revenue figures show that JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America have rebuilt their positions following the turbulent past fifteen years. JPMorgan alone reported revenue of $278 billion, up 16.5%.

The banks are back, releasing data that indicates the financial system is doing fairly well despite the burden of tightened credit and high interest rates on average Americans. The list captures, but does not resolve, the tension that exists between lived experience and institutional performance.

In the end, the Fortune 100 doesn’t provide solutions. It’s an accurate, if incomplete, depiction of the current state of economic power in America: which businesses are expanding, which are contracting, which industries are rising, and which are subtly declining. It’s difficult not to get the impression that these rankings are more about the slow, grinding passage of history than they are about business performance when you watch that list change year after year.

The top companies are more than just wealthy. Understanding them is more important than most people probably realize because they are, in a very real sense, the infrastructure of American life.