vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Brown–Forman (BF.B) and Kimberly-Clark (KMB), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Kimberly-Clark is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.3B vs $1.0B, roughly 3.2× Brown–Forman). Brown–Forman runs the higher net margin — 21.6% vs 15.1%, a 6.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Brown–Forman posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-5.4% vs -33.2%). Kimberly-Clark produced more free cash flow last quarter ($575.0M vs $107.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Brown–Forman's revenue compounded faster (-1.6% CAGR vs -20.0%).
Brown-Forman Corporation is an American family-controlled publicly traded company, one of the largest in the spirits and wine business. Based in Louisville, Kentucky, it manufactures several very well known brands throughout the world, including Jack Daniel's, Old Forester, Woodford Reserve, GlenDronach, BenRiach, Glenglassaugh, Herradura, Korbel, and Chambord. Brown-Forman formerly owned Southern Comfort and Tuaca before selling them off in 2016.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation is an American multinational consumer goods and personal care corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer products. The company manufactures sanitary paper products and surgical & medical instruments. Kimberly-Clark brand name products include Kleenex facial tissue, Kotex feminine hygiene products, Cottonelle, Scott and Andrex toilet paper, Wypall utility wipes, KimWipes scientific cleaning wipes and Huggies disposable diapers and baby wipes.
BF.B vs KMB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.0B | $3.3B |
| Net Profit | $224.0M | $499.0M |
| Gross Margin | 59.4% | 37.7% |
| Operating Margin | 29.4% | 11.2% |
| Net Margin | 21.6% | 15.1% |
| Revenue YoY | -5.4% | -33.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | -13.2% | 11.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.47 | $1.50 |
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 | $1.0B | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $924.0M | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $894.0M | $4.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $4.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $4.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $951.0M | $5.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $964.0M | $5.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1B | $5.1B |
| Q4 25 | $224.0M | $499.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $170.0M | $446.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $146.0M | $509.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $270.0M | $567.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $258.0M | $447.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $195.0M | $907.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $266.0M | $544.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $285.0M | $647.0M |
| Q4 25 | 59.4% | 37.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 59.7% | 36.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 57.4% | 35.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 59.8% | 35.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 59.0% | 34.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 59.4% | 36.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 59.0% | 36.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 59.4% | 37.1% |
| Q4 25 | 29.4% | 11.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 28.1% | 15.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 22.9% | 14.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 27.1% | 15.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 31.1% | 11.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 29.5% | 23.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 38.9% | 13.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 34.9% | 16.6% |
| Q4 25 | 21.6% | 15.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.4% | 10.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 16.3% | 12.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 26.1% | 11.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 23.6% | 9.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.5% | 18.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 27.6% | 10.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 26.7% | 12.6% |
| Q4 25 | $0.47 | $1.50 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.36 | $1.34 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.31 | $1.53 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.57 | $1.70 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.55 | $1.34 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.41 | $2.69 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.56 | $1.61 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.60 | $1.91 |
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 | $319.0M | $688.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.4B | $6.5B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $4.1B | $1.5B |
| Total Assets | $8.2B | $17.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.59× | 4.31× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $319.0M | $688.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $471.0M | $617.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $444.0M | $634.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $599.0M | $563.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $416.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $416.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $446.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $589.0M | $853.0M |
| Q4 25 | $2.4B | $6.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.4B | $6.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.4B | $6.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.7B | $6.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.7B | $6.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.7B | $6.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.7B | $7.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.7B | $7.2B |
| Q4 25 | $4.1B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.0B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.0B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.8B | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7B | $840.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.5B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.5B | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.2B | $1.0B |
| Q4 25 | $8.2B | $17.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.2B | $16.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.1B | $16.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.1B | $16.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.3B | $16.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.2B | $17.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.2B | $17.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.2B | $17.1B |
| Q4 25 | 0.59× | 4.31× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.61× | 4.86× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.61× | 5.09× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.70× | 5.89× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.73× | 8.18× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.77× | 5.36× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.76× | 6.30× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.83× | 6.86× |
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 | $132.0M | $972.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $107.0M | $575.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 10.3% | 17.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.4% | 12.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.59× | 1.95× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $610.0M | $1.6B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $132.0M | $972.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $160.0M | $708.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $152.0M | $770.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $317.0M | $327.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $112.0M | $817.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $17.0M | $958.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $285.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $265.0M | $438.0M |
| Q4 25 | $107.0M | $575.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $129.0M | $368.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $102.0M | $573.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $272.0M | $123.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $81.0M | $608.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-24.0M | $798.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $205.0M | $863.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $196.0M | $244.0M |
| Q4 25 | 10.3% | 17.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.0% | 8.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.4% | 13.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 26.3% | 2.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.4% | 12.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.5% | 16.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.3% | 17.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 18.3% | 4.7% |
| Q4 25 | 2.4% | 12.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.4% | 8.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.6% | 4.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.3% | 4.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.8% | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.3% | 3.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.3% | 3.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.5% | 3.8% |
| Q4 25 | 0.59× | 1.95× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.94× | 1.59× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.04× | 1.51× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.17× | 0.58× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.43× | 1.83× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.09× | 1.06× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.07× | 1.88× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.93× | 0.68× |
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
BF.B
| Whiskey | $771.0M | 74% |
| Ready To Drink | $138.0M | 13% |
| Tequila | $67.0M | 6% |
| Restofportfolio | $52.0M | 5% |
| Nonbrandedandbulk | $8.0M | 1% |
KMB
| North America NA | $2.6B | 80% |
| Adult Care Products | $490.0M | 15% |
| Other | $127.0M | 4% |
| All Other | $34.0M | 1% |
