vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Aramark (ARMK) and GFL Environmental Inc. (GFL). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
GFL Environmental Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.9B vs $4.8B, roughly 1.0× Aramark). Aramark runs the higher net margin — 2.0% vs -13.9%, a 15.9% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Aramark is an American food service and facilities services provider to clients in areas including education, prisons, healthcare, business, and leisure. It operates in North America and an additional 14 countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Chile, Ireland, and Spain.
GFL Environmental Inc. is an American-Canadian waste management company founded in Vaughan, Ontario, with headquarters in Miami Beach, Florida. Founded in 2007, GFL operates in all provinces in Canada and much of the United States, and currently employs more than 20,000 people. The company provides environmental services to municipal, residential, commercial, industrial and institutional customers.
ARMK vs GFL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $4.8B | $4.9B |
| Net Profit | $96.2M | $-686.1M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 4.5% | — |
| Net Margin | 2.0% | -13.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.1% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | -9.0% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.36 | — |
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 | $4.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.0B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $4.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.6B | $3.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.3B | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.6B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.4B | $5.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.4B | $3.9B |
| Q1 26 | $96.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $87.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-686.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $71.8M | $-727.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $61.9M | $-195.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $105.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $122.4M | $94.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.1M | — |
| Q1 26 | 4.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 4.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.7% | — |
| Q1 26 | 2.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -13.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.6% | -22.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.4% | -12.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.8% | 1.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.3% | — |
| Q1 26 | $0.36 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.33 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.27 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.23 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.39 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.46 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.22 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $439.6M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $6.2B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.2B | — |
| Total Assets | $13.5B | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.94× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $439.6M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $639.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $501.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $920.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $484.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $672.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $436.1M | — |
| Q1 26 | $6.2B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.4B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.3B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.1B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.0B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.3B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.0B | — |
| Q1 26 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.1B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.1B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9B | — |
| Q1 26 | $13.5B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $13.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.3B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $12.7B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.7B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.5B | — |
| Q1 26 | 1.94× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.71× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.03× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.02× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.61× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.42× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.71× | — |
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 | $-782.2M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-904.4M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -18.7% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.5% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | -8.13× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $-782.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $76.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $255.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-587.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $140.7M | — |
| Q1 26 | $-904.4M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-34.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $140.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-707.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $882.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $55.6M | — |
| Q1 26 | -18.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -15.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.3% | — |
| Q1 26 | 2.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | — |
| Q1 26 | -8.13× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.07× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.14× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -5.56× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.35× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.42× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ARMK
| Education | $1.1B | 22% |
| Sports Leisure Corrections | $961.2M | 20% |
| Food And Support Services International | $847.8M | 18% |
| Other | $621.6M | 13% |
| Businessand Industry | $510.6M | 11% |
| Health Care | $421.3M | 9% |
| Facility Services | $382.9M | 8% |
GFL
Segment breakdown not available.
