vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BT Brands, Inc. (BTBD) and TELUS CORP (TU), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
TELUS CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.7B vs $3.9M, roughly 962.7× BT Brands, Inc.). BT Brands, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 23.7% vs -4.8%, a 28.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, TELUS CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (2.2% vs -11.4%).
BT Group plc is a British multinational telecommunications holding company headquartered in London, England. It has operations in around 180 countries and is the largest provider of fixed-line, broadband and mobile services in the UK, and also provides subscription television and IT services.
Telus Corporation is a Canadian publicly traded holding company and conglomerate, headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, which is the parent company of several subsidiaries: Telus Communications offers telephony, television, data and Internet services; Telus Mobility offers wireless services; Telus Health operates companies that provide health products and services; and Telus Digital operates worldwide, providing multilingual customer service outsourcing and digital IT services. Telus ...
BTBD vs TU — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2025 vs Q2 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.9M | $3.7B |
| Net Profit | $915.0K | $-178.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | 90.2% |
| Operating Margin | 19.1% | 3.4% |
| Net Margin | 23.7% | -4.8% |
| Revenue YoY | -11.4% | 2.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | 516.9% | -210.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.15 | — |
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.
| Q3 25 | $3.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.8M | $3.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.1M | $3.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.2M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $4.0M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $4.0M | — |
| Q3 25 | $915.0K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $55.0K | $-178.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-329.8K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-219.5K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-70.0K | $161.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-445.7K | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $-3.5K | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $-233.7K | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 90.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 87.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | 19.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.0% | 3.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -9.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -4.6% | 13.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -19.8% | — | ||
| Q4 23 | 1.0% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | -2.0% | — |
| Q3 25 | 23.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.5% | -4.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -10.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -5.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.7% | 4.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | -14.0% | — | ||
| Q4 23 | -0.1% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | -5.8% | — |
| Q3 25 | $0.15 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.04 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — |
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 | $3.5M | $2.7B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $7.7M | $11.8B |
| Total Assets | $11.9M | $44.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q3 25 | $3.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.0M | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5M | $676.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $1.4M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $1.2M | — |
| Q3 25 | $7.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.8M | $11.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.7M | $12.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.8M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $9.6M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $9.6M | — |
| Q3 25 | $11.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.2M | $44.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $14.0M | $41.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $14.0M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $14.9M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $15.1M | — |
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 | $325.2K | $851.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $261.8K | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 6.8% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.6% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.36× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q3 25 | $325.2K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $384.4K | $851.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-306.7K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $129.3K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $82.5K | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-408.9K | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $37.0K | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $362.5K | — |
| Q3 25 | $261.8K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-431.1K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $50.4K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $53.7K | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-521.3K | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $-59.5K | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $203.8K | — |
| Q3 25 | 6.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -13.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -16.3% | — | ||
| Q4 23 | -1.5% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | 5.1% | — |
| Q3 25 | 1.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.5% | — | ||
| Q4 23 | 2.4% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | 4.0% | — |
| Q3 25 | 0.36× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.98× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 6.28× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — |
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.
