vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Burlington Stores, Inc. (BURL) and Ross Stores (ROST), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Ross Stores is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($5.6B vs $2.7B, roughly 2.1× Burlington Stores, Inc.). Ross Stores runs the higher net margin — 3.9% vs 9.1%, a 5.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Ross Stores posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (10.4% vs 7.1%). Ross Stores produced more free cash flow last quarter ($617.8M vs $-109.6M). Over the past eight quarters, Ross Stores's revenue compounded faster (-3.6% CAGR vs -6.9%).
Burlington, formerly known as Burlington Coat Factory, is an American national off-price retailer, and a division of Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation with more than 1,138 stores in 46 states and Puerto Rico, with its corporate headquarters located in Burlington Township, New Jersey. In 2007, it was acquired by Bain Capital in a transaction and in 2008, Tom Kingsbury became president and CEO. The company went public again in 2013. Burlington is the third largest off-price retailer...
Ross Stores, Inc., operating under the brand name Ross Dress for Less, is an American chain of discount department stores headquartered in Dublin, California. It is the largest off-price retailer in the U.S.; as of July 2024, Ross operates 1,795 stores in 43 U.S. states, Washington, D.C. Puerto Rico and Guam, covering much of the country, but with no presence in New England and Alaska. The company also operates DD's Discounts, a discount department store chain with over 353 locations across t...
BURL vs ROST — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2026 vs Q3 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.7B | $5.6B |
| Net Profit | $104.8M | $511.9M |
| Gross Margin | 44.2% | 28.0% |
| Operating Margin | 5.1% | 11.6% |
| Net Margin | 3.9% | 9.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.1% | 10.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | 15.6% | 4.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.63 | $1.58 |
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 | $2.7B | $5.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.7B | $5.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.5B | $5.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.3B | $5.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.5B | $5.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $5.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4B | $4.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.1B | $6.0B |
| Q4 25 | $104.8M | $511.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $94.2M | $508.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $100.8M | $479.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $260.8M | $586.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $90.6M | $488.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $73.8M | $527.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $78.5M | $488.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $227.5M | $609.7M |
| Q4 25 | 44.2% | 28.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 43.7% | 27.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 43.8% | 28.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 42.9% | 26.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 43.9% | 28.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 42.8% | 28.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 43.5% | 28.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 42.7% | 27.3% |
| Q4 25 | 5.1% | 11.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.7% | 11.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.3% | 12.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.6% | 12.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.7% | 11.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.0% | 12.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | 12.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.0% | 13.2% |
| Q4 25 | 3.9% | 9.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.5% | 9.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.0% | 9.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.0% | 9.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.6% | 9.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.0% | 10.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.3% | 10.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.3% | 10.1% |
| Q4 25 | $1.63 | $1.58 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.47 | $1.56 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.58 | $1.47 | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.03 | $1.79 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.40 | $1.48 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.15 | $1.59 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.22 | $1.46 | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.51 | $1.82 |
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 | $584.1M | $4.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.0B | $1.5B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.5B | $5.9B |
| Total Assets | $9.6B | $15.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.32× | 0.26× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $584.1M | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $747.6M | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $371.1M | $3.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $994.7M | $4.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $857.8M | $4.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $659.9M | $4.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $742.3M | $4.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $925.4M | $4.9B |
| Q4 25 | $2.0B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | $2.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.5B | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | $2.5B |
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $5.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $5.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | $5.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $5.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $5.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $4.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $996.9M | $4.9B |
| Q4 25 | $9.6B | $15.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.3B | $14.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.5B | $14.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.8B | $14.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.4B | $14.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.8B | $14.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.7B | $14.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.7B | $14.3B |
| Q4 25 | 1.32× | 0.26× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.40× | 0.26× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.21× | 0.27× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.12× | 0.40× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.35× | 0.42× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.15× | 0.48× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.20× | 0.50× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.40× | 0.51× |
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 | $143.3M | $827.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-109.6M | $617.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -4.1% | 11.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 9.3% | 3.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.37× | 1.62× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-358.5M | $2.0B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $143.3M | $827.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $179.4M | $668.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-28.9M | $409.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $543.2M | $882.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $110.4M | $513.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $160.4M | $592.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $49.4M | $368.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $598.5M | $948.8M |
| Q4 25 | $-109.6M | $617.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-101.0K | $466.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-438.6M | $202.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $189.8M | $676.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-56.2M | $333.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-35.2M | $394.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-115.5M | $232.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $410.3M | $726.4M |
| Q4 25 | -4.1% | 11.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -0.0% | 8.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -17.5% | 4.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.8% | 11.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | -2.2% | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.4% | 7.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -4.9% | 4.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 13.1% | 12.1% |
| Q4 25 | 9.3% | 3.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.6% | 3.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 16.4% | 4.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.8% | 3.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.6% | 3.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.9% | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.0% | 2.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.0% | 3.7% |
| Q4 25 | 1.37× | 1.62× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.91× | 1.32× | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.29× | 0.85× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.08× | 1.50× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.22× | 1.05× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.18× | 1.12× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.63× | 0.76× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.63× | 1.56× |
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.
