Meta and Microsoft have kicked off 2025 with record-breaking financial results in the quarter ending last year. They have showcased their dominance in the tech world. Meta’s advertising boom and strong user engagement fueled its revenue surge, while Microsoft’s AI and cloud innovations drove its impressive growth.
Both tech giants are riding high, but whose numbers truly steal the show? Let’s dive into their revenue battle to find out.
Meta’s Revenue Boom Powered by Ads
Performance Summary
- Profit of $20.83 billion for Q4, marking a 49% increase from $14.02 billion in the same period last year.
- This translated to earnings of $8.02 per share, up from $5.33 per share a year ago. Revenue for the quarter grew by 21%, reaching $48.39 billion, compared to $40.11 billion in Q4
- For the entire 2024, revenue reached $164.5 billion, a 22% increase compared to 2023. Higher ad impressions and an increase in the average price per ad drove this growth.
Meta’s Family of Apps, including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, saw strong user engagement. Daily active users reached 3.35 billion in December, marking a 5% year-over-year growth.
Rising Costs and AI Investment
While revenue soared, expenses also increased. Costs and expenses for the full year rose by 8% to $95.12 billion. In Q4 alone, Meta reported $25.02 billion in costs, including a $1.55 billion reduction in legal losses, which offset some expenses. Capital expenditures for the year totaled $39.23 billion.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressed himself on Meta’s solid performance. He said,
“I expect 2025 to be the year when a highly intelligent and personalized AI assistant reaches more than 1 billion people, and I expect Meta AI to lead the way.”
Meta’s strong Q4 results reflect its ability to leverage advertising growth and user engagement while navigating rising costs. However, with significant investments in AI on the horizon, 2025 will be a key year for the company’s long-term vision.
Microsoft’s Robust Results Driven by AI and Cloud Growth
Microsoft also posted its financial results for the quarter ending December 31, 2024, fueled by strong performance in its AI and cloud segments. The performance snapshot is explained below:
- Revenue reached $69.6 billion, a 12% increase compared to the same period in 2023.
- Operating income grew 17% to $31.7 billion. Net income rose 10% to $24.1 billion, with earnings per share at $3.23.
Satya Nadella, chairman and CEO of Microsoft noted,
“We are innovating across our tech stack and helping customers unlock the full ROI of AI to capture the massive opportunity ahead. Already, our AI business has surpassed an annual revenue run rate of $13 billion, up 175% year-over-year.”
Key Business Highlights
- The Productivity and Business Processes segment reported $29.4 billion in revenue, a 14% increase driven by strong demand for Microsoft 365 and Dynamics 365.
- Intelligent Cloud revenue grew 19% to $25.5 billion, with Azure and other cloud services leading the growth with a 31% increase.
- The More Personal Computing segment remained flat at $14.7 billion, although search and advertising revenue grew by 21%, and Windows OEM revenue increased by 4%.
Cloud and AI Lead the Way
Amy Hood, executive vice president and chief financial officer of Microsoft said,
“This quarter Microsoft Cloud revenue was $40.9 billion, up 21% year-over-year. We remain committed to balancing operational discipline with continued investments in our cloud and AI infrastructure.”
Looking ahead, Microsoft expects Azure growth of 31-32% for the third fiscal quarter. At the same time, Hood also highlighted challenges with capacity constraints but remains optimistic about future growth opportunities.
In conclusion, Meta’s revenue grew by 21%, while Microsoft’s increased by 12% in the last quarter of 2024 compared to the same period in 2023. Thus, Meta performed better!
Meta Vs Microsoft: Comparative Analysis of Emission Reduction and Net Zero Goals
Both Microsoft and Meta are committed to reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with ambitious goals aimed at achieving net-zero across their global operations and value chains. However, their emissions profiles and strategies show some key differences.
Meta’s Commitment to Net Zero Emissions
As per its latest sustainability report, in 2023, Meta’s net emissions equaled 7.4 million metric tons of CO2. Key commitments include:
- Reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 42% by 2031, compared to a 2021 baseline, and ensuring maximum suppliers adopt science-aligned GHG reduction targets by 2026.
- Keep Scope 3 emissions at or below 2021 levels by 2031.
- Since 2020, Meta has successfully maintained net zero emissions in its operations, and it is on track to achieve net zero across its entire value chain by 2030.
To address residual emissions, Meta is investing in both nature-based and technological carbon removal projects, which help mitigate climate change and provide broader environmental benefits, including enhanced biodiversity.
Scaling Renewable Energy
Renewable energy has played a pivotal role in Meta’s emissions reduction strategy.
- In 2023 alone, the company’s renewable energy initiatives helped cut operational emissions by 5.1 million tons of CO2e, while value chain emissions were reduced by 1.4 million tons of CO2e.
Through strategic partnerships with utilities such as Pacific Power and Dominion Energy, Meta has facilitated the addition of 2,600 MW of new wind and solar capacity in the U.S., making clean energy more accessible.
- As of 2023, Meta’s global renewable energy portfolio exceeded 11,700 MW, with over 6,700 MW of that capacity online in the U.S.
Data Center Efficiency and Carbon Removal Solutions
Meta’s data center facilities have achieved LEED Gold Certification or higher and are powered by 100% renewable energy to meet their electricity needs.
In addition, 91% of the construction waste generated by Meta’s data centers was recycled in 2023. Additionally, it reduces embedded carbon by extending hardware lifespan and using recycled plastics and metals, promoting a circular model to cut waste and carbon impact.
Meta also uses “green tariffs”, which allow the company to purchase renewable energy directly from electricity providers. This not only supports clean energy projects but also increases the accessibility of renewable resources to a wider customer base.
Microsoft’s Net Zero Goals: Renewable Energy and Carbon Removal Gains
In 2023, Microsoft made significant strides in its commitment to sustainability, expanding its contracted renewable energy portfolio to over 19.8 GW across 21 countries.
The company secured 5 million metric tons of carbon removal to reach net zero by 2030, balancing low, medium, and high-durability projects to meet long-term targets.
Scope Emissions
- Scope 3 emissions which account for over 96% of Microsoft’s total emissions rose by 30.9% in 2023.
- Overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 15.4 MtCO₂e in 2023, a 29.1% rise as compared to the 2020 baseline.
This increase was largely driven by upstream purchased goods and services and downstream use of sold products. However, as per Microsoft, it has achieved a 6% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions compared to its 2020 baseline by adopting renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives.
Data Centers Efficiency and Fleet Electrification
In its data centers, Microsoft has focused on maximizing energy efficiency. In 2023, its data centers achieved a Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) score of 1.12, demonstrating the company’s commitment to minimizing energy use while optimizing operations.
Additionally, the company reduced its Azure hardware needs by 1.5%, minimizing embodied carbon in the process. It is also transitioning to a 100% electric fleet by 2030, with infrastructure development already underway at its Redmond headquarters.
Overall, both companies are taking significant steps toward reducing their carbon footprint. Meta is focused on keeping Scope 3 emissions steady while scaling renewable energy adoption, whereas Microsoft faces a rise in Scope 3 emissions which is a matter of concern.
Additionally, Microsoft’s total GHG emissions are significantly higher than Meta’s. Yet it’s continuing to prioritize its energy efficiency in its operations and decarbonize its supply chain to achieve its net zero goals.
The post Meta Vs. Microsoft: Who’s Leading the Q4 Revenue Game and Net Zero Goals? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits