vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. (BOOT) and LGI Homes, Inc. (LGIH), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($705.6M vs $474.0M, roughly 1.5× LGI Homes, Inc.). Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 12.2% vs 3.7%, a 8.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (16.0% vs -15.0%). Over the past eight quarters, Boot Barn Holdings, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (34.8% CAGR vs 10.1%).
Henry Boot plc is a British property development business based in Sheffield, England. It was floated on the London Stock Exchange in 1919, becoming the first quoted housebuilder. Between the wars, Henry Boot built more houses than any other company. The company remains a significant construction and property management company operating in the UK.
LGI Homes is a Texas-based builder of new construction homes and housing developments, with its development projects mostly focused in the southwestern region of the United States. According to Builder Magazine, LGI Homes is the tenth largest home builder in the United States. 2013, the company announced the pricing of its initial public offering: 9,000,000 shares at $11 per share. 2019, LGI Homes closed 7,690 homes, which was an 18.1% increase over 2018. Home sales revenue in 2019 was $1.8 b...
BOOT vs LGIH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $705.6M | $474.0M |
| Net Profit | $85.8M | $17.3M |
| Gross Margin | 39.9% | 17.7% |
| Operating Margin | 16.3% | 3.9% |
| Net Margin | 12.2% | 3.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 16.0% | -15.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 14.3% | -66.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.79 | $0.74 |
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 | $705.6M | $474.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $505.4M | $396.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $504.1M | $483.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $453.7M | $351.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $608.2M | $557.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $425.8M | $651.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $423.4M | $602.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $388.5M | $390.9M |
| Q4 25 | $85.8M | $17.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $42.2M | $19.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $53.4M | $31.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $37.5M | $4.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $75.1M | $50.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $29.4M | $69.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $38.9M | $58.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $29.4M | $17.1M |
| Q4 25 | 39.9% | 17.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.4% | 21.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.1% | 22.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 37.1% | 21.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 39.3% | 22.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 35.9% | 25.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 37.0% | 25.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 35.9% | 23.4% |
| Q4 25 | 16.3% | 3.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.2% | 5.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.0% | 8.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.0% | 0.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.4% | 8.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.4% | 12.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.9% | 11.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.8% | 4.8% |
| Q4 25 | 12.2% | 3.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.4% | 5.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.6% | 6.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.3% | 1.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.3% | 9.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.9% | 10.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.2% | 9.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.6% | 4.4% |
| Q4 25 | $2.79 | $0.74 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.37 | $0.85 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.74 | $1.36 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.24 | $0.17 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.43 | $2.15 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.95 | $2.95 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.26 | $2.48 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.96 | $0.72 |
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 | $200.1M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.7B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.3B | $2.1B |
| Total Assets | $2.4B | $3.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.79× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $200.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $64.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $95.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $69.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $152.9M | $53.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $37.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $83.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $75.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $981.8M | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $943.6M | $1.9B |
| Q4 25 | $2.4B | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.3B | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | $4.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | $3.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.0B | $3.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.9B | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $3.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7B | $3.5B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.79× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.73× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $209.7M | $86.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $148.0M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 21.0% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 8.7% | 0.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 2.44× | 5.01× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $89.8M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $209.7M | $86.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $25.7M | $-13.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $73.8M | $-86.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-43.1M | $-127.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $157.1M | $57.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-7.8M | $-17.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $41.3M | $-83.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-99.5M |
| Q4 25 | $148.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-17.5M | $-13.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $42.4M | $-86.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-83.1M | $-128.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $114.2M | $56.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-46.1M | $-17.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $14.2M | $-83.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-100.5M |
| Q4 25 | 21.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -3.5% | -3.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.4% | -17.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -18.3% | -36.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 18.8% | 10.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -10.8% | -2.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.4% | -13.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -25.7% |
| Q4 25 | 8.7% | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.6% | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.2% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.8% | 0.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.1% | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.0% | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.4% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.3% |
| Q4 25 | 2.44× | 5.01× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.61× | -0.67× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.38× | -2.74× | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.15× | -31.83× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.09× | 1.12× | ||
| Q3 24 | -0.26× | -0.26× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.06× | -1.43× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -5.83× |
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
BOOT
Segment breakdown not available.
LGIH
| West Reportable Segment | $128.2M | 27% |
| Southeast Reportable Segment | $118.9M | 25% |
| Central Reportable Segment | $105.8M | 22% |
| Florida Reportable Segment | $69.2M | 15% |
| Northwest Reportable Segment | $51.8M | 11% |
