vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP (ASB) and Mastercard (MA), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Mastercard is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($8.8B vs $310.0M, roughly 28.4× ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP). Mastercard runs the higher net margin — 44.2% vs 46.1%, a 1.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Mastercard posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (17.6% vs 14.7%). Over the past eight quarters, Mastercard's revenue compounded faster (17.8% CAGR vs -2.0%).
Associated Banc-Corp is a U.S. regional bank holding company providing retail banking, commercial banking, commercial real estate lending, private banking and specialized financial services. Headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Associated is a Midwest bank with from more than 220 banking locations serving more than 100 communities throughout Wisconsin, Illinois and Minnesota. The company also operates loan production offices in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Texas.
Mastercard Inc. is an American multinational payment card services corporation headquartered in Purchase, New York. It offers a range of payment transaction processing and other related-payment services. Throughout the world, its principal business is to process payments between the banks of merchants and the card-issuing banks or credit unions of the purchasers who use the Mastercard-brand debit, credit and prepaid cards to make purchases. Mastercard has been publicly traded since 2006.
ASB vs MA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $310.0M | $8.8B |
| Net Profit | $137.1M | $4.1B |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 52.6% | 55.8% |
| Net Margin | 44.2% | 46.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 14.7% | 17.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | 184.8% | 21.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.80 | $4.52 |
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 | $310.0M | $8.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $305.2M | $8.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $300.0M | $8.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $285.9M | $7.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $270.3M | $7.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $329.7M | $7.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $321.8M | $7.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $322.8M | $6.3B |
| Q4 25 | $137.1M | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $124.7M | $3.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $111.2M | $3.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $101.7M | $3.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $-161.6M | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $88.0M | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $115.6M | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $81.2M | $3.0B |
| Q4 25 | 52.6% | 55.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 50.5% | 58.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 46.5% | 58.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 42.3% | 57.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -65.8% | 52.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 32.8% | 54.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 32.0% | 58.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 31.3% | 56.8% |
| Q4 25 | 44.2% | 46.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 40.9% | 45.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 37.1% | 45.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 35.6% | 45.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -59.8% | 44.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.7% | 44.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 35.9% | 46.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 25.1% | 47.4% |
| Q4 25 | $0.80 | $4.52 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.73 | $4.34 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.65 | $4.07 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.59 | $3.59 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.10 | $3.64 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.56 | $3.53 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.74 | $3.50 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.52 | $3.22 |
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 | — | $10.6B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $1.0B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.0B | $7.7B |
| Total Assets | $45.2B | $54.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.20× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $10.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $10.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $9.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $7.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $8.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $11.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $7.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $7.3B |
| Q4 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $594.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $593.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $591.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $844.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $536.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $536.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $5.0B | $7.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.9B | $7.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.8B | $7.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.7B | $6.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.6B | $6.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.4B | $7.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $7.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.2B | $7.2B |
| Q4 25 | $45.2B | $54.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $44.5B | $53.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $44.0B | $51.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $43.3B | $48.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $43.0B | $48.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $42.2B | $47.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $41.6B | $42.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $41.1B | $42.6B |
| Q4 25 | 0.20× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.12× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.12× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.13× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.31× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.19× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.13× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.13× | — |
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 | $218.1M | $5.0B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $4.9B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 55.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 1.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.59× | 1.23× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $17.2B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $218.1M | $5.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $158.0M | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $141.5M | $4.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $98.2M | $2.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $207.1M | $4.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $105.1M | $5.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $113.5M | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $154.5M | $1.7B |
| Q4 25 | — | $4.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $5.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $4.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $4.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $5.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.5B |
| Q4 25 | — | 55.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 63.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 56.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 30.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 63.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 68.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 43.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 23.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.5% |
| Q4 25 | 1.59× | 1.23× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.27× | 1.44× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.27× | 1.24× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.97× | 0.73× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.45× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.19× | 1.57× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.98× | 0.96× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.90× | 0.56× |
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.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ASB
Segment breakdown not available.
MA
| Payment Network | $4.9B | 56% |
| Value Added Services And Solutions | $3.9B | 44% |
