vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO (ANF) and Hudbay Minerals Inc. (HBM). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Hudbay Minerals Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.0B vs $1.3B, roughly 1.6× ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO). ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO runs the higher net margin — 8.8% vs 3.4%, a 5.4% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (A&F) is an American lifestyle retailer founded in 1892, which focuses on contemporary clothing targeting customers in their early 20s to mid 40s. Headquartered in New Albany, Ohio, the company operates four offshoot brands: Abercrombie Kids, Your Personal Best, Hollister Co., and Gilly Hicks with 780+ company operated stores across its brands, as of Q4 2024.
Hudbay Minerals Inc. is a Canadian mining company that produces copper, gold, silver, zinc, and molybdenum. In 2024, the company produced 137,943 tonnes of copper, 332,240 ounces of gold, 3,983,851 ounces of silver, 33,339 tonnes of zinc, and 1,323 tonnes of molybdenum. In 2024, copper sales represented 57% of revenue, gold sales represented 33% of revenue, and zinc sales represented 4% of revenue.
ANF vs HBM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.3B | $2.0B |
| Net Profit | $113.0M | $67.8M |
| Gross Margin | 62.5% | 27.4% |
| Operating Margin | 12.0% | — |
| Net Margin | 8.8% | 3.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.8% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | -14.4% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.36 | — |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6B | $525.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $67.8M | ||
| Q4 25 | $113.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $141.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $80.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $187.2M | $18.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $132.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $133.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $113.8M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | 27.4% | ||
| Q4 25 | 62.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 62.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 62.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 29.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 65.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 64.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 66.4% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.7% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | 3.4% | ||
| Q4 25 | 8.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.8% | 3.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.2% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.36 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.91 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.59 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.55 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.50 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.50 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.14 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $631.0M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.3B | — |
| Total Assets | $3.5B | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $631.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $603.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $607.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $888.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $738.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $738.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $864.2M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.1B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.0B | — |
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 | $200.1M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $131.8M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 10.2% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 5.3% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.77× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $384.5M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $200.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $116.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $307.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $142.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $165.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $95.0M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $131.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $50.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-54.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $256.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $92.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $122.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $56.1M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 10.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -5.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.5% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 5.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.8% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.77× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.83× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.05× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.64× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.08× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.24× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.83× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ANF
| Hollister | $673.3M | 52% |
| Abercrombie | $617.3M | 48% |
| Gift Card | $25.7M | 2% |
| Royalty | $19.5M | 2% |
HBM
Segment breakdown not available.
