vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Albemarle Corporation (ALB) and BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC (EAT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.5B vs $1.4B, roughly 1.0× Albemarle Corporation). BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC runs the higher net margin — 8.8% vs -29.0%, a 37.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Albemarle Corporation posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.9% vs 6.9%). Albemarle Corporation produced more free cash flow last quarter ($233.1M vs $155.2M). Over the past eight quarters, BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC's revenue compounded faster (13.9% CAGR vs 2.4%).
Albemarle Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets engineered specialty chemicals worldwide. It operates through three segments: Lithium, Bromine, and Catalysts. The Lithium segment offers lithium compounds, including lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, lithium chloride, and lithium specialties; and reagents, such as butyllithium and lithium aluminum hydride for use in lithium batteries for consumer electronics and electric vehicles, high performance greases, thermoplastic elastomers...
Brinker International, Inc. is an American multinational hospitality industry company that owns Chili's and Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant chains. Founded in 1975 and based in Dallas, Texas, Brinker currently owns, operates, or franchises 1,672 restaurants under the names Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy worldwide.
ALB vs EAT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.4B | $1.5B |
| Net Profit | $-414.2M | $128.5M |
| Gross Margin | 13.9% | — |
| Operating Margin | -15.2% | 11.6% |
| Net Margin | -29.0% | 8.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.9% | 6.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -650.1% | 8.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-3.88 | $2.86 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.4B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | $1.1B |
| Q4 25 | $-414.2M | $128.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-160.7M | $99.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.9M | $107.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $41.3M | $119.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $75.3M | $118.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.1B | $38.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-188.2M | $57.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.4M | $48.7M |
| Q4 25 | 13.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -7.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | -15.2% | 11.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | -16.6% | 8.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.6% | 9.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.8% | 11.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.4% | 11.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | -81.9% | 5.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -34.4% | 6.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -13.2% | 6.2% |
| Q4 25 | -29.0% | 8.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | -12.3% | 7.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.7% | 7.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.8% | 8.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.1% | 8.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -78.9% | 3.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -13.2% | 4.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.2% | 4.3% |
| Q4 25 | $-3.88 | $2.86 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.72 | $2.17 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.16 | $2.31 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.00 | $2.56 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.29 | $2.61 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-9.45 | $0.84 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.96 | $1.22 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.08 | $1.08 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $15.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $3.2B | $451.3M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $9.5B | $379.3M |
| Total Assets | $16.4B | $2.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.33× | 1.19× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $15.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $33.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $18.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | $17.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $14.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $16.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $64.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | $15.5M |
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $451.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.6B | $525.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.6B | $426.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.5B | $518.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.5B | $652.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.6B | $806.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.5B | $786.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.5B | $818.5M |
| Q4 25 | $9.5B | $379.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0B | $343.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.2B | $370.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.0B | $259.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.0B | $131.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.2B | $12.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.2B | $39.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.5B | $-46.7M |
| Q4 25 | $16.4B | $2.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $17.1B | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.3B | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.0B | $2.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $16.6B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $17.5B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.4B | $2.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $19.0B | $2.5B |
| Q4 25 | 0.33× | 1.19× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.36× | 1.53× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.35× | 1.15× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.35× | 2.00× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.35× | 4.96× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.35× | 63.54× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.31× | 19.96× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.31× | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $388.5M | $218.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $233.1M | $155.2M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 16.3% | 10.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 10.9% | 4.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 1.70× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $692.5M | $455.9M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $388.5M | $218.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $355.6M | $120.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.2M | $186.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $545.4M | $212.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $674.0K | $218.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $240.5M | $62.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $362.9M | $141.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $98.0M | $130.1M |
| Q4 25 | $233.1M | $155.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $223.4M | $62.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-126.8M | $106.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $362.8M | $132.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-355.1M | $168.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-62.6M | $6.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-84.7M | $83.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-481.4M | $78.7M |
| Q4 25 | 16.3% | 10.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.1% | 4.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -9.5% | 7.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 33.7% | 9.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -28.8% | 12.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -4.6% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | -5.9% | 6.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -35.4% | 7.0% |
| Q4 25 | 10.9% | 4.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.1% | 4.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.0% | 5.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 17.0% | 5.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 28.9% | 3.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.4% | 5.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 31.3% | 4.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 42.6% | 4.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.70× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.21× | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.31× | 1.74× | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.19× | 1.78× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.01× | 1.84× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.63× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 2.47× | ||
| Q1 24 | 40.01× | 2.67× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ALB
| Energy Storage | $759.1M | 53% |
| Specialties | $348.9M | 24% |
| Ketjen | $320.1M | 22% |
EAT
| Chilis Restaurants | $1.3B | 91% |
| Maggianos Restaurants | $134.9M | 9% |
| Franchise Revenues | $13.4M | 1% |
