vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. (BHR) and Thryv Holdings, Inc. (THRY). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Thryv Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($167.7M vs $165.6M, roughly 1.0× Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc.). Thryv Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 2.7% vs -20.3%, a 23.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-4.5% vs -7.5%). Thryv Holdings, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-5.5M vs $-37.1M). Over the past eight quarters, Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (-13.1% CAGR vs -13.5%).
Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. is a publicly traded real estate investment trust focused on owning and operating premium luxury hotel and resort properties primarily across the United States. It caters to upscale leisure travelers, corporate event planners, and premium business guests, generating revenue via accommodation bookings, on-site amenities, and event hosting.
Thryv Holdings, Inc. is a publicly traded software as a service (SaaS) company, providing customer relationship management and online reputation management software for small businesses. It has headquarters in Dallas, Texas, and operates in 48 states across the United States of America with more than 2,400 employees. The company began as a conglomerate of Yellow Pages companies. In June 2020, Thryv reported $1.3 billion in revenue over a twelve-month period.
BHR vs THRY — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $165.6M | $167.7M |
| Net Profit | $-33.6M | $4.5M |
| Gross Margin | — | 65.2% |
| Operating Margin | -7.3% | 37.3% |
| Net Margin | -20.3% | 2.7% |
| Revenue YoY | -4.5% | -7.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | -80.1% | 147.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.67 | $0.10 |
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 | — | $167.7M | ||
| Q4 25 | $165.6M | $191.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $143.6M | $201.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $179.1M | $210.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $215.8M | $181.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $173.3M | $186.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $148.4M | $179.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $187.6M | $224.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | $4.5M | ||
| Q4 25 | $-33.6M | $-9.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.7M | $5.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-5.5M | $13.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.0M | $-9.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-18.7M | $7.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.6M | $-96.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-11.6M | $5.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | 65.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 68.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 67.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 69.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 65.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 65.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 62.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 66.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | 37.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | -7.3% | 5.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.8% | 9.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.0% | 14.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 17.0% | -1.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.2% | -3.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 47.4% | -49.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.5% | 14.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | 2.7% | ||
| Q4 25 | -20.3% | -5.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.0% | 2.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.1% | 6.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.1% | -5.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -10.8% | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.5% | -53.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -6.2% | 2.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.10 | ||
| Q4 25 | $-0.67 | $-0.21 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.12 | $0.13 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.24 | $0.31 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.04 | $-0.22 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.47 | $0.28 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.02 | $-2.65 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.33 | $0.15 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $124.4M | $8.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $1.1B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $138.7M | $225.4M |
| Total Assets | $1.9B | $693.7M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 7.96× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $8.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $124.4M | $10.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $116.3M | $11.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $80.2M | $10.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $81.7M | $11.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $135.5M | $16.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $168.7M | $12.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $114.6M | $15.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $253.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $268.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $275.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $299.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $284.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $307.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $342.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | $225.4M | ||
| Q4 25 | $138.7M | $218.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $211.9M | $221.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $225.1M | $214.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $238.9M | $193.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $240.7M | $196.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $276.9M | $94.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $282.3M | $183.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | $693.7M | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $688.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0B | $701.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | $687.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.1B | $703.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.1B | $712.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.2B | $654.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.2B | $785.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 7.96× | 1.16× | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.50× | 1.21× | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.38× | 1.28× | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.03× | 1.55× | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.03× | 1.44× | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.36× | 3.26× | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.00× | 1.87× |
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 | $40.8M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-37.1M | $-5.5M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -22.4% | -3.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 47.1% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-59.2M | $43.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $40.8M | $22.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.8M | $22.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.0M | $29.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $15.1M | $-10.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $66.8M | $26.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.0K | $36.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $24.1M | $22.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | $-5.5M | ||
| Q4 25 | $-37.1M | $12.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-27.3M | $14.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.3M | $21.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-159.0K | $-17.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-3.8M | $17.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-15.6M | $27.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.2M | $13.3M |
| Q1 26 | — | -3.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | -22.4% | 6.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -19.0% | 7.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.0% | 10.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -0.1% | -9.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -2.2% | 9.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | -10.5% | 15.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.4% | 5.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 47.1% | 5.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.0% | 3.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.9% | 3.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.1% | 3.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 40.7% | 4.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.5% | 4.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.5% | 4.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -1.00× | 3.93× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.12× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.38× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.32× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.00× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 4.01× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BHR
| Occupancy | $97.4M | 59% |
| Food And Beverage | $45.5M | 28% |
| Hotel Other | $22.6M | 14% |
THRY
| SaaS | $116.7M | 70% |
| Other | $50.9M | 30% |
