vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of American Homes 4 Rent (AMH) and Brixmor Property Group Inc. (BRX), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
American Homes 4 Rent is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($455.0M vs $353.8M, roughly 1.3× Brixmor Property Group Inc.). Brixmor Property Group Inc. runs the higher net margin — 31.7% vs 38.8%, a 7.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Brixmor Property Group Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.7% vs 4.2%). Over the past eight quarters, Brixmor Property Group Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (5.1% CAGR vs 3.6%).
American Homes 4 Rent, doing business as AMH, is a real estate investment trust based in Las Vegas, Nevada, that invests in single-family rental homes. As of December 31, 2019, the company owned 52,552 homes in 22 states. Its largest concentrations are in Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Charlotte, North Carolina.
Brixmor Property Group is a publicly traded real estate investment trust that invests in shopping centers.
AMH vs BRX — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $455.0M | $353.8M |
| Net Profit | $144.3M | $137.1M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | — |
| Net Margin | 31.7% | 38.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 4.2% | 7.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 0.3% | 64.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.33 | $0.43 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $455.0M | $353.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $478.5M | $340.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $457.5M | $339.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $459.3M | $337.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $436.6M | $328.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $445.1M | $320.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $423.5M | $315.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $423.6M | $320.2M |
| Q4 25 | $144.3M | $137.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $116.8M | $94.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $123.6M | $85.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $128.7M | $69.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $143.9M | $83.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $87.6M | $96.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $108.5M | $70.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $128.1M | $88.9M |
| Q4 25 | 31.7% | 38.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.4% | 27.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 27.0% | 25.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 28.0% | 20.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 33.0% | 25.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.7% | 30.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 25.6% | 22.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 30.2% | 27.8% |
| Q4 25 | $0.33 | $0.43 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.27 | $0.31 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.28 | $0.28 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.30 | $0.23 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.33 | $0.27 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.20 | $0.32 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.25 | $0.23 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.30 | $0.29 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $108.5M | $334.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $5.1B | $5.5B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $7.0B | $3.0B |
| Total Assets | $13.2B | $9.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.72× | 1.83× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $108.5M | $334.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $45.6M | $331.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $323.3M | $105.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $69.7M | $106.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $199.4M | $377.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $162.5M | $451.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $718.4M | $473.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $124.8M | $407.1M |
| Q4 25 | $5.1B | $5.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.8B | $5.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.2B | $5.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.9B | $5.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.0B | $5.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.0B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.5B | — |
| Q4 25 | $7.0B | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.2B | $3.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.2B | $3.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.2B | $3.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.2B | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.0B | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.0B | $2.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.0B | $2.9B |
| Q4 25 | $13.2B | $9.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.3B | $9.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.6B | $8.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.3B | $8.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.4B | $8.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.8B | $8.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $13.3B | $8.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.8B | $8.6B |
| Q4 25 | 0.72× | 1.83× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.68× | 1.85× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.72× | 1.73× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.69× | 1.73× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.70× | 1.79× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.64× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.71× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.64× | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $145.8M | $172.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $135.5M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 29.8% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.3% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.01× | 1.26× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $823.7M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $145.8M | $172.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $223.3M | $168.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $271.9M | $181.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $223.4M | $130.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $102.2M | $155.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $233.6M | $157.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $274.0M | $183.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $201.8M | $128.5M |
| Q4 25 | $135.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $214.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $257.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $215.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $97.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $225.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $263.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $191.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | 29.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 44.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 56.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 47.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 50.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 62.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 45.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.01× | 1.26× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.91× | 1.79× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.20× | 2.13× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.74× | 1.87× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.71× | 1.86× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.67× | 1.63× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.52× | 2.62× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.58× | 1.45× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
