vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Borr Drilling Ltd (BORR) and Duolingo, Inc. (DUOL). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Duolingo, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($295.5M vs $267.7M, roughly 1.1× Borr Drilling Ltd). Borr Drilling Ltd runs the higher net margin — 13.1% vs 11.9%, a 1.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Duolingo, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (27.0% vs -1.5%).
Borr Drilling Ltd is a global offshore drilling contractor owning and operating a modern fleet of high-spec jack-up rigs. It offers drilling services to oil and gas exploration and production firms, with main operations across the North Sea, Southeast Asia, Middle East, and West Africa for shallow-water and marginal field projects.
Duolingo, Inc. is a leading global edtech firm operating a gamified language learning platform. It offers free and premium self-paced courses for over 40 languages, plus language certification, math learning tools, and literacy programs, serving individual learners, schools and corporate clients worldwide.
BORR vs DUOL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $267.7M | $295.5M |
| Net Profit | $35.1M | $35.1M |
| Gross Margin | — | 55.5% |
| Operating Margin | 36.0% | 8.0% |
| Net Margin | 13.1% | 11.9% |
| Revenue YoY | -1.5% | 27.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 10.7% | 24.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.14 | $0.72 |
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 | — | $295.5M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $282.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $271.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $267.7M | $252.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $230.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $209.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $192.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $271.9M | $178.3M |
| Q1 26 | — | $35.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $42.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $292.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $35.1M | $44.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $35.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $13.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $23.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $31.7M | $24.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | 55.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 72.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 72.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 72.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 71.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 71.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 72.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 73.4% |
| Q1 26 | — | 8.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 15.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 12.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 36.0% | 13.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 10.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 7.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 38.4% | 10.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | 11.9% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 14.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 107.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.1% | 17.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 15.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 12.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.7% | 13.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.72 | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $0.99 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $5.95 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.14 | $0.91 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.72 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.31 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.49 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.12 | $0.51 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $92.4M | $1.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.0B | $1.3B |
| Total Assets | $3.4B | $2.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $92.4M | $976.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $884.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $785.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $854.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $195.3M | $888.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $977.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $893.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $824.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $822.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $999.2M | $766.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.4B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.2B | $1.1B |
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 | $6.3M | $105.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $103.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 34.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.18× | 3.01× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $368.4M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $105.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $107.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $84.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.3M | $90.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $105.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $83.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $56.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $16.0M | $62.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | $103.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $96.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $79.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $89.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $104.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $81.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $53.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $56.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | 34.9% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 34.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 29.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 35.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 45.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 38.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 27.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 31.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 3.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 3.1% |
| Q1 26 | — | 3.01× | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 2.56× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.29× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.18× | 2.02× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.01× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 5.99× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.41× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.50× | 2.56× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BORR
| Transferred Over Time | $256.6M | 96% |
| Transferred At Point In Time | $11.1M | 4% |
DUOL
| Bookings | $283.5M | 96% |
| Other | $12.0M | 4% |
