vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Birkenstock Holding plc (BIRK) and STEVEN MADDEN, LTD. (SHOO). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
STEVEN MADDEN, LTD. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($749.8M vs $526.3M, roughly 1.4× Birkenstock Holding plc). Birkenstock Holding plc runs the higher net margin — 19.3% vs 3.3%, a 16.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. Over the past eight quarters, Birkenstock Holding plc's revenue compounded faster (26.8% CAGR vs 16.7%).
Birkenstock Holding plc is a German shoe manufacturer known for its sandals and other shoes notable for contoured cork footbeds (soles), made with layers of suede and jute, which conform to the shape of their wearers' feet. Founded in 1774 by Johann Adam Birkenstock and headquartered in Neustadt (Wied), Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, the company's original purpose was to create shoes that support and contour the foot, compared to the flat soles of many shoes during that time. In 1896, the Fus...
Steven Madden, Ltd. is a publicly traded company that designs and markets shoes and fashion accessories. Based in Long Island City, New York, the company's brands include Dolce Vita, Betsey Johnson, Blondo, BB Dakota and Mad Love. Steve Madden is also a licensee of various brands, including Anne Klein and Superga.
BIRK vs SHOO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $526.3M | $749.8M |
| Net Profit | $101.4M | $24.7M |
| Gross Margin | 62.8% | 42.6% |
| Operating Margin | 23.0% | 4.8% |
| Net Margin | 19.3% | 3.3% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 29.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -34.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.33 |
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 | — | $749.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $526.3M | $664.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $685.8M | $556.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $620.3M | $551.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $390.7M | $578.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $455.8M | $621.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $609.9M | $521.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $519.7M | $550.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | $24.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $101.4M | $20.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $139.6M | $-38.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $113.5M | $41.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $21.7M | $37.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $55.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $80.6M | $36.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $77.4M | $44.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | 42.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 62.8% | 41.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 60.5% | 40.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 57.7% | 41.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 60.3% | 40.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 41.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 59.5% | 41.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 56.3% | 40.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 23.0% | 4.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 31.2% | -7.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 30.5% | 9.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.7% | 8.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 12.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 27.5% | 9.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 27.5% | 10.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.3% | 3.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.3% | -7.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 18.3% | 7.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.6% | 6.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 8.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.2% | 7.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 14.9% | 8.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.33 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.29 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.56 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.57 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.49 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.77 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.49 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0.60 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $355.4M | $112.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.9B | $866.4M |
| Total Assets | $5.3B | $1.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $112.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $355.4M | $140.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $282.8M | $111.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $254.2M | $147.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $322.5M | $203.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $384.3M | $11.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $436.7M | $192.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $189.8M | $143.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $866.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.9B | $850.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.8B | $833.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.0B | $875.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $847.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.8B | $833.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.8B | $808.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.7B | $825.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.3B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.3B | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.4B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.4B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.3B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.4B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.2B | $1.3B |
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 | $415.0M | $91.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $80.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 10.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 1.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 4.09× | 3.70× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $119.5M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $91.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $415.0M | $23.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $66.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-18.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-12.6M | $103.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $463.0M | $444.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $109.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-15.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $80.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $8.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $58.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-28.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $94.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-6.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $104.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-19.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | 10.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 10.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -5.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 16.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -1.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 20.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -3.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.70× | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.09× | 1.14× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -0.46× | ||
| Q4 24 | -0.58× | 2.75× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.01× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 2.96× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -0.35× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
