vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Arista Networks (ANET) and Deckers Brands (DECK). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Arista Networks is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.5B vs $2.0B, roughly 1.3× Deckers Brands). Arista Networks runs the higher net margin — 38.4% vs 24.6%, a 13.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Arista Networks posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (28.9% vs 7.1%). Over the past eight quarters, Deckers Brands's revenue compounded faster (42.8% CAGR vs 25.8%).
Arista Networks, Inc. is an American computer networking company headquartered in Santa Clara, California. The company designs and sells multilayer network switches to deliver software-defined networking (SDN) for large datacenter, cloud computing, high-performance computing, and high-frequency trading environments. These products include 10/25/40/50/100/200/400/800 gigabit low-latency cut-through Ethernet switches. Arista's Linux-based network operating system, Extensible Operating System (E...
Deckers Outdoor Corporation, doing business as Deckers Brands, is an American footwear designer and distributor founded in 1973 and based in Goleta, California. The company's portfolio of brands includes UGG, Teva, and Hoka. It was founded by Doug Otto and Karl F. Lopker.
ANET vs DECK — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.5B | $2.0B |
| Net Profit | $955.8M | $481.1M |
| Gross Margin | 62.9% | 59.8% |
| Operating Margin | 41.5% | 31.4% |
| Net Margin | 38.4% | 24.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 28.9% | 7.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 19.3% | 5.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.74 | $3.33 |
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 | $2.5B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.3B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.2B | $964.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | $1.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.9B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $825.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.6B | $959.8M |
| Q4 25 | $955.8M | $481.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $853.0M | $268.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $888.8M | $139.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $813.8M | $151.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $801.0M | $456.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $747.9M | $242.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $665.4M | $115.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $637.7M | $127.5M |
| Q4 25 | 62.9% | 59.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 64.6% | 56.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 65.2% | 55.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 63.7% | 56.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 63.8% | 60.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 64.2% | 55.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 64.9% | 56.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 63.7% | 56.2% |
| Q4 25 | 41.5% | 31.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 42.4% | 22.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 44.7% | 17.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 42.8% | 17.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 41.4% | 31.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 43.4% | 23.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 41.4% | 16.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 42.0% | 15.0% |
| Q4 25 | 38.4% | 24.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 37.0% | 18.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 40.3% | 14.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 40.6% | 14.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 41.5% | 25.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 41.3% | 18.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 39.4% | 14.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 40.6% | 13.3% |
| Q4 25 | $0.74 | $3.33 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.67 | $1.82 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.70 | $0.93 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.64 | $-2.78 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-4.17 | $3.00 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.33 | $1.59 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.08 | $4.52 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.99 | $4.82 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $2.0B | $2.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $12.4B | $2.6B |
| Total Assets | $19.4B | $4.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $2.0B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.3B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.2B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.8B | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.2B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | $1.5B |
| Q4 25 | $12.4B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.9B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.9B | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.1B | $2.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.0B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.2B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.4B | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.9B | $2.1B |
| Q4 25 | $19.4B | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.0B | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $16.5B | $3.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.5B | $3.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $14.0B | $4.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.8B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.6B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.6B | $3.1B |
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 | $1.3B | $1.0B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $1.0B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 52.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 1.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.32× | 2.17× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $929.1M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $8.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $36.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $641.7M | $-73.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $-90.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $989.0M | $112.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $513.8M | $-28.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $-13.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $12.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $613.3M | $-89.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $-113.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $985.9M | $90.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $504.4M | $-44.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 52.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 53.6% | -1.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 53.3% | 1.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 30.6% | -8.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 58.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 64.5% | -8.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 58.3% | 10.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 32.1% | -4.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.3% | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.1% | 2.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.4% | 1.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.4% | 1.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.2% | 2.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.6% | 1.6% |
| Q4 25 | 1.32× | 2.17× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.49× | 0.03× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.35× | 0.26× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.79× | -0.48× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.29× | 2.40× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.57× | -0.37× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.49× | 0.97× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.81× | -0.22× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ANET
| Products | $2.1B | 84% |
| Services | $392.1M | 16% |
DECK
| UGG Brand Segment | $1.3B | 67% |
| Hoka Brand Segment | $628.9M | 32% |
| Other Brands Segment | $23.2M | 1% |
