vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Atmos Energy (ATO) and Alliant Energy (LNT), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Atmos Energy is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.3B vs $1.1B, roughly 1.3× Alliant Energy). Atmos Energy runs the higher net margin — 30.0% vs 13.4%, a 16.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Atmos Energy posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (14.2% vs 9.0%). Over the past eight quarters, Alliant Energy's revenue compounded faster (1.5% CAGR vs -9.7%).
Atmos Energy Corporation, headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is one of the United States' largest natural-gas-only distributors, serving about three million natural gas distribution customers in over 1,400 communities in nine states from the Blue Ridge Mountains in the East to the Rocky Mountains in the West.
Alliant Energy Corporation operates as a utility holding company that provides regulated electricity and natural gas services. It operates through three segments: Utility Electric Operations, Utility Gas Operations, and Utility Other. The company, through its subsidiary, Interstate Power and Light Company (IPL), primarily generates and distributes electricity, and distributes and transports natural gas to retail customers in Iowa; sells electricity to wholesale customers in Minnesota, Illinoi...
ATO vs LNT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.3B | $1.1B |
| Net Profit | $403.0M | $142.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | 85.9% |
| Operating Margin | 38.3% | 18.4% |
| Net Margin | 30.0% | 13.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 14.2% | 9.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 14.5% | -5.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.44 | $0.54 |
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 | $1.3B | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $737.5M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $838.8M | $961.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $975.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $657.9M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $701.5M | $894.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.6B | $1.0B |
| Q4 25 | $403.0M | $142.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $174.9M | $281.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $186.4M | $174.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $485.6M | $213.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $351.9M | $150.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $134.0M | $295.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $165.6M | $87.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $432.0M | $158.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 85.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 86.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 84.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 60.0% | 86.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 80.1% | 84.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 84.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 83.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 62.1% | 85.3% |
| Q4 25 | 38.3% | 18.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 29.8% | 28.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 30.1% | 23.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 32.2% | 22.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 39.1% | 22.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 28.1% | 29.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 31.4% | 14.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 33.4% | 21.5% |
| Q4 25 | 30.0% | 13.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 23.7% | 23.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 22.2% | 18.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 24.9% | 18.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 29.9% | 15.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.4% | 27.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.6% | 9.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 26.2% | 15.3% |
| Q4 25 | $2.44 | $0.54 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.04 | $1.09 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.16 | $0.68 | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.03 | $0.83 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.23 | $0.58 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.82 | $1.15 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.08 | $0.34 | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.85 | $0.62 |
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 | $367.0M | $556.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $9.6B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $14.3B | $7.3B |
| Total Assets | $29.8B | $25.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.67× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $367.0M | $556.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $202.7M | $753.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $709.4M | $329.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $543.5M | $25.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $584.5M | $81.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $307.3M | $827.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $674.6M | $92.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $262.5M | $32.0M |
| Q4 25 | $9.6B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.9B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.9B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.4B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.4B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.8B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.8B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.4B | — |
| Q4 25 | $14.3B | $7.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.6B | $7.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.4B | $7.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.1B | $7.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $12.8B | $7.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.2B | $7.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.2B | $6.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.6B | $6.8B |
| Q4 25 | $29.8B | $25.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $28.2B | $24.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $27.7B | $23.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.0B | $22.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $26.5B | $22.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $25.2B | $22.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $24.9B | $21.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $24.0B | $21.2B |
| Q4 25 | 0.67× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.66× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.67× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.64× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.66× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.64× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.64× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.64× | — |
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 | $308.1M | $269.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-725.3M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -54.0% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 77.0% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.76× | 1.89× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-1.6B | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $308.1M | $269.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $348.1M | $408.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $496.4M | $243.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $922.9M | $249.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $282.0M | $254.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $330.7M | $351.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $411.2M | $255.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $746.6M | $307.0M |
| Q4 25 | $-725.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-615.5M | $-103.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-370.6M | $-179.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $83.3M | $-305.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-609.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-477.3M | $-59.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-302.4M | $-137.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $100.7M | $-171.0M |
| Q4 25 | -54.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -83.5% | -8.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -44.2% | -18.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.3% | -27.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | -51.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -72.5% | -5.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -43.1% | -15.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.1% | -16.6% |
| Q4 25 | 77.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 130.7% | 42.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 103.4% | 43.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 43.0% | 49.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 75.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 122.8% | 37.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 101.7% | 43.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 39.2% | 46.4% |
| Q4 25 | 0.76× | 1.89× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.99× | 1.45× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.66× | 1.40× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.90× | 1.17× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.80× | 1.69× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.47× | 1.19× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.48× | 2.93× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.73× | 1.94× |
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
ATO
| Distribution Segment | $1.3B | 94% |
| Transportation Revenue | $41.5M | 3% |
| Other | $39.4M | 3% |
| Miscellaneous Revenue | $2.8M | 0% |
LNT
| Retail Residential | $313.0M | 29% |
| Retail Industrial | $251.0M | 24% |
| Retail Commercial | $226.0M | 21% |
| Gas | $158.0M | 15% |
| Other Customer | $43.0M | 4% |
| Wholesale | $36.0M | 3% |
| Other Utility | $15.0M | 1% |
| Steam | $9.0M | 1% |
