vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Crown Castle (CCI) and Extra Space Storage (EXR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Crown Castle is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($53.0M vs $34.0M, roughly 1.6× Extra Space Storage). Extra Space Storage runs the higher net margin — 554.7% vs 845.5%, a 290.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Extra Space Storage posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.8% vs 1.9%). Crown Castle produced more free cash flow last quarter ($811.0M vs $116.8M). Over the past eight quarters, Extra Space Storage's revenue compounded faster (6.2% CAGR vs 0.0%).
Crown Castle Inc. is a real estate investment trust and provider of shared communications infrastructure in the United States headquartered in Houston, Texas. Operating with 100 offices worldwide, its network includes over 40,000 cell towers and approximately 85,000 route miles of fiber supporting small cells and fiber systems.
Extra Space Storage Inc. is an American real estate investment trust headquartered in Cottonwood Heights, Utah that invests in self storage facilities. The company rents storage units, including climate controlled units, drive-up units, lockers, boat storage, RV storage and business storage under the brands Extra Space Storage, Life Storage, and Storage Express. As of March 28, 2024 the company owned and/or operated 3,714 locations in 43 states, and Washington, D.C. comprising approximately 2.
CCI vs EXR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $53.0M | $34.0M |
| Net Profit | $294.0M | $287.4M |
| Gross Margin | 47.2% | -580.9% |
| Operating Margin | — | — |
| Net Margin | 554.7% | 845.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 1.9% | 9.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | 106.2% | 9.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.67 | $1.35 |
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 | $53.0M | $34.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.0M | $32.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $52.0M | $32.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $50.0M | $30.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $52.0M | $31.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $59.0M | $29.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $46.0M | $29.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $53.0M | $30.1M |
| Q4 25 | $294.0M | $287.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $323.0M | $166.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $291.0M | $249.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-464.0M | $270.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-4.8B | $262.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $303.0M | $193.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $251.0M | $185.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $311.0M | $213.1M |
| Q4 25 | 47.2% | -580.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 50.0% | -623.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 48.1% | -610.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 44.0% | -623.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 46.2% | -614.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 49.2% | -599.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 41.3% | -559.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 35.8% | -578.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -8663.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 554.7% | 845.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 538.3% | 510.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 559.6% | 779.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -928.0% | 876.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | -9169.2% | 847.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 513.6% | 646.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 545.7% | 622.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 586.8% | 706.9% |
| Q4 25 | $0.67 | $1.35 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.74 | $0.78 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.67 | $1.18 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.07 | $1.28 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-10.97 | $1.23 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.70 | $0.91 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.58 | $0.88 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.71 | $1.01 |
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 | $99.0M | $138.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $21.6B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $-1.6B | $13.4B |
| Total Assets | $31.5B | $29.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $99.0M | $138.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $57.0M | $111.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $94.0M | $125.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $60.0M | $119.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $119.0M | $138.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $194.0M | $88.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $155.0M | $77.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $125.0M | $50.8M |
| Q4 25 | $21.6B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $21.6B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.0B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $22.9B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $23.5B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $23.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $22.9B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $22.6B | — |
| Q4 25 | $-1.6B | $13.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.5B | $13.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.4B | $13.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.3B | $13.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $-133.0M | $13.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.3B | $14.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.7B | $14.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.0B | $14.3B |
| Q4 25 | $31.5B | $29.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $31.5B | $29.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $31.6B | $29.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $31.8B | $29.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $32.7B | $28.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $38.0B | $28.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $38.2B | $27.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $38.2B | $27.5B |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.43× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.04× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.73× | — |
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 | $870.0M | $367.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $811.0M | $116.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 1530.2% | 343.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 111.3% | 738.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 2.96× | 1.28× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $2.9B | $1.3B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $870.0M | $367.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $714.0M | $457.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $832.0M | $543.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $641.0M | $481.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $877.0M | $408.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $699.0M | $468.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $768.0M | $545.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $599.0M | $465.6M |
| Q4 25 | $811.0M | $116.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $671.0M | $444.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $792.0M | $382.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $601.0M | $345.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $601.0M | $151.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $402.0M | $309.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $439.0M | $517.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $279.0M | $430.5M |
| Q4 25 | 1530.2% | 343.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1118.3% | 1365.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1523.1% | 1192.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1202.0% | 1117.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1155.8% | 488.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 681.4% | 1034.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 954.3% | 1733.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 526.4% | 1427.9% |
| Q4 25 | 111.3% | 738.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 71.7% | 39.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 76.9% | 504.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 80.0% | 440.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 530.8% | 830.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 503.4% | 532.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 715.2% | 92.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 603.8% | 116.4% |
| Q4 25 | 2.96× | 1.28× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.21× | 2.75× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.86× | 2.18× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.78× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.56× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.31× | 2.42× | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.06× | 2.93× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.93× | 2.18× |
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.
