vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp (BAH) and Deckers Brands (DECK). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.6B vs $2.0B, roughly 1.3× Deckers Brands). Deckers Brands runs the higher net margin — 24.6% vs 7.6%, a 16.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Deckers Brands posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.1% vs -10.2%). Deckers Brands produced more free cash flow last quarter ($1.0B vs $248.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Deckers Brands's revenue compounded faster (42.8% CAGR vs -2.8%).
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation is the parent of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., an American company specializing in digital transformation and artificial intelligence. The company is headquartered in McLean, Virginia, in the Washington metropolitan area, with 80 additional offices around the globe. Booz Allen's stated core business is to provide consulting, analysis, and engineering services to public- and private-sector organizations and nonprofits.
Deckers Outdoor Corporation, doing business as Deckers Brands, is an American footwear designer and distributor founded in 1973 and based in Goleta, California. The company's portfolio of brands includes UGG, Teva, and Hoka. It was founded by Doug Otto and Karl F. Lopker.
BAH vs DECK — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2026 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.6B | $2.0B |
| Net Profit | $200.0M | $481.1M |
| Gross Margin | 51.9% | 59.8% |
| Operating Margin | 8.8% | 31.4% |
| Net Margin | 7.6% | 24.6% |
| Revenue YoY | -10.2% | 7.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 7.0% | 5.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.63 | $3.33 |
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.
| Q4 25 | $2.6B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.9B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.9B | $964.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.0B | $1.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.9B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.1B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9B | $825.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.8B | $959.8M |
| Q4 25 | $200.0M | $481.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $175.0M | $268.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $271.0M | $139.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $192.7M | $151.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $186.9M | $456.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $390.1M | $242.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $165.2M | $115.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $128.0M | $127.5M |
| Q4 25 | 51.9% | 59.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 53.6% | 56.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 51.3% | 55.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 53.6% | 56.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 55.2% | 60.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 56.7% | 55.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 53.4% | 56.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 54.7% | 56.2% |
| Q4 25 | 8.8% | 31.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.8% | 22.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.8% | 17.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.2% | 17.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.0% | 31.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 17.4% | 23.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.7% | 16.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.5% | 15.0% |
| Q4 25 | 7.6% | 24.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.1% | 18.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.3% | 14.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.5% | 14.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.4% | 25.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.4% | 18.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.6% | 14.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.6% | 13.3% |
| Q4 25 | $1.63 | $3.33 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.42 | $1.82 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.16 | $0.93 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.52 | $-2.78 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.45 | $3.00 | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.01 | $1.59 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.27 | $4.52 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.97 | $4.82 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $882.0M | $2.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $3.9B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.0B | $2.6B |
| Total Assets | $7.1B | $4.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.84× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $882.0M | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $816.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $711.0M | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $885.0M | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $453.5M | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $558.7M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $297.7M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $554.3M | $1.5B |
| Q4 25 | $3.9B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.0B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.0B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.4B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.4B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.4B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.4B | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.0B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $996.0M | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $2.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | $2.1B |
| Q4 25 | $7.1B | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.2B | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.2B | $3.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.3B | $3.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.8B | $4.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.9B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.6B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.6B | $3.1B |
| Q4 25 | 3.84× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.98× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.74× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.99× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.79× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.83× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.14× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.26× | — |
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 | $261.0M | $1.0B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $248.0M | $1.0B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 9.5% | 52.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.5% | 1.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.30× | 2.17× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $933.4M | $929.1M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $261.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $421.0M | $8.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $119.0M | $36.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $219.0M | $-73.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $150.8M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $587.1M | $-90.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $52.1M | $112.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $143.8M | $-28.7M |
| Q4 25 | $248.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $395.0M | $-13.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $96.0M | $12.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $194.4M | $-89.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $133.6M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $563.3M | $-113.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.7M | $90.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $127.6M | $-44.0M |
| Q4 25 | 9.5% | 52.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.7% | -1.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.3% | 1.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.5% | -8.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.6% | 58.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 17.9% | -8.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.7% | 10.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.6% | -4.6% |
| Q4 25 | 0.5% | 1.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.9% | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.8% | 2.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.8% | 1.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.6% | 1.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.8% | 1.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.1% | 2.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.6% | 1.6% |
| Q4 25 | 1.30× | 2.17× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.41× | 0.03× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.44× | 0.26× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.14× | -0.48× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.81× | 2.40× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.50× | -0.37× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.32× | 0.97× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.12× | -0.22× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BAH
| Defense Clients | $1.5B | 55% |
| Civil Clients | $732.0M | 28% |
| Intelligence Clients | $434.0M | 17% |
DECK
| UGG Brand Segment | $1.3B | 67% |
| Hoka Brand Segment | $628.9M | 32% |
| Other Brands Segment | $23.2M | 1% |
