vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Amer Sports, Inc. (AS) and Digital Realty (DLR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Digital Realty is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.6B vs $1.1B, roughly 1.6× Amer Sports, Inc.). Digital Realty runs the higher net margin — 6.0% vs 1.8%, a 4.2% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Amer Sports, Inc. is a Finnish multinational sporting equipment division based in Helsinki, Finland. Established in 1950 as an industrial conglomerate with interests as diverse as tobacco trading, ship owning and publishing, Amer has gradually evolved into a multinational firm devoted to the production and marketing of sporting goods. The company employs over 9,700 people. Since 2018, Amer has been a subsidiary of Chinese retail conglomerate Anta Sports.
Digital Realty is a real estate investment trust that owns, operates and invests in carrier-neutral data centers across the world. The company offers data center, colocation, and interconnection services.
AS vs DLR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2024 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.1B | $1.6B |
| Net Profit | $19.0M | $98.6M |
| Gross Margin | 52.8% | — |
| Operating Margin | 12.4% | 6.9% |
| Net Margin | 1.8% | 6.0% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 16.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -10.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.05 | $0.22 |
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 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.4B |
| Q1 26 | — | $98.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $98.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $67.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $110.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $189.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $51.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $80.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | 6.9% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 6.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 8.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 14.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 13.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 10.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 11.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | 6.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 6.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 4.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 69.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 7.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 13.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 5.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.22 | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $0.22 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.15 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.94 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.27 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.50 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.09 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.20 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $3.5B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $22.9B |
| Total Assets | — | $49.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $3.5B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.3B |
| Q1 26 | — | $22.9B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $22.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $23.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $22.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $21.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $21.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $21.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $20.5B |
| Q1 26 | — | $49.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $49.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $48.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $48.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $45.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $45.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $45.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $43.6B |
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 | $114.3M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $92.2M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 8.8% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.1% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 6.02× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $719.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $652.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $641.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $399.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $769.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $566.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $573.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 7.29× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 9.63× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.62× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.63× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 4.06× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 11.07× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 7.15× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AS
| Americas2 | $409.6M | 39% |
| EMEA1 | $356.9M | 34% |
| Greater China3 | $205.6M | 20% |
| Asia Pacific4 | $78.2M | 7% |
DLR
Segment breakdown not available.
