vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CALERES INC (CAL) and SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO CO (SMG). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO CO is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.5B vs $790.1M, roughly 1.8× CALERES INC). SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO CO runs the higher net margin — 16.3% vs 0.3%, a 16.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, CALERES INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (6.6% vs -16.9%). Over the past eight quarters, SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO CO's revenue compounded faster (10.2% CAGR vs 6.5%).
Caleres Inc. is an American footwear company that owns and operates a variety of footwear brands. Its headquarters is located in Clayton, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis. The company was founded in 1878 as Bryan, Brown & Company in St. Louis, though it underwent several name changes. The Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company was the largest manufacturer of shoes in America in the early 20th century, but it went bankrupt in June 1939.
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Marysville, Ohio, where O.M. Scott began selling lawn seed in 1868. The company manufactures and sells consumer lawn, garden and pest control products, as well as soilless indoor gardening equipment. In the U.S., the company manufactures Scotts, Miracle-Gro and Ortho brands. It also markets and distributes the herbicide Roundup in the U.S. and several international markets including China.
CAL vs SMG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2026 vs Q2 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $790.1M | $1.5B |
| Net Profit | $2.4M | $238.6M |
| Gross Margin | 41.8% | 41.8% |
| Operating Margin | 1.5% | 27.5% |
| Net Margin | 0.3% | 16.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.6% | -16.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -94.2% | 61.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.07 | $-2.00 |
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 | — | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 25 | $790.1M | $354.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $658.5M | $387.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $614.2M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $639.2M | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $740.9M | $416.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $683.3M | $414.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $659.2M | $1.2B |
| Q1 26 | — | $238.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.4M | $-125.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.9M | $149.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.9M | $217.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $41.4M | $-69.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $30.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $30.9M | $132.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | 41.8% | ||
| Q4 25 | 41.8% | 25.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 43.4% | 6.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 45.4% | 31.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 43.0% | 38.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 44.1% | 22.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 45.5% | -7.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 46.9% | 29.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | 27.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.5% | -6.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.4% | -38.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.9% | 18.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | 24.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.7% | -12.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.2% | -52.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.5% | 16.6% |
| Q1 26 | — | 16.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.3% | -35.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.1% | 12.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.8% | 15.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.6% | -16.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | 11.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | $-2.00 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.07 | $-2.16 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.20 | $-2.58 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.21 | $2.54 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.17 | $3.72 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.19 | $-1.21 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.85 | $-4.21 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.88 | $2.28 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $34.0M | $6.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $2.3B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $616.8M | — |
| Total Assets | $2.1B | $3.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $6.2M | ||
| Q4 25 | $34.0M | $8.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $191.5M | $36.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $33.1M | $51.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $29.6M | $16.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $33.7M | $9.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $51.8M | $71.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $30.7M | $279.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $616.8M | $-500.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $613.3M | $-357.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $605.2M | $-170.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $599.0M | $-290.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $598.3M | $-479.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $606.1M | $-390.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $570.3M | $-146.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.1B | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.9B | $3.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.0B | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.0B | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.9B | $3.5B |
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 | $-1.2M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-12.4M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -1.6% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 1.4% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | -0.50× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $14.4M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-1.2M | $-370.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $47.3M | $174.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-5.7M | $454.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $28.7M | $188.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-39.8M | $-445.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $79.6M | $118.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $36.1M | $588.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-12.4M | $-390.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $35.0M | $131.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-26.2M | $437.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $18.0M | $179.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-57.4M | $-474.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $68.5M | $101.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $26.3M | $574.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -1.6% | -110.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.3% | 33.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -4.3% | 36.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.8% | 12.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -7.7% | -113.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.0% | 24.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.0% | 47.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.4% | 5.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.9% | 11.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.3% | 1.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.7% | 0.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.4% | 7.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.6% | 4.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.5% | 1.1% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -0.50× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.05× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.81× | 3.05× | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.82× | 0.86× | ||
| Q4 24 | -0.96× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.66× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.17× | 4.45× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CAL
| Brand Portfolio | $383.7M | 49% |
| Landed Wholesale | $148.1M | 19% |
| Wholesale E Commerce | $75.0M | 9% |
| Ecommerce | $68.8M | 9% |
| Stuart Weitzman Brand | $45.8M | 6% |
| Landed Wholesale Ecommerce Drop Ship | $30.6M | 4% |
| First Cost Wholesale | $14.9M | 2% |
| Clt Brand Solutions | $10.2M | 1% |
| License And Royalty | $2.1M | 0% |
SMG
Segment breakdown not available.
