vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CARLISLE COMPANIES INC (CSL) and Match Group (MTCH). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CARLISLE COMPANIES INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $878.0M, roughly 1.2× Match Group). Match Group runs the higher net margin — 23.9% vs 12.1%, a 11.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Match Group posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (2.1% vs -4.0%). Match Group produced more free cash flow last quarter ($308.1M vs $-73.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Match Group's revenue compounded faster (1.1% CAGR vs -14.8%).
Carlisle Companies Incorporated is a supplier of construction products that make buildings more energy efficient and resilient. The company manufactures and sells single-ply roofing products as well as warranted systems and accessories for the commercial building industry. The company is organized into two segments, including Carlisle Construction Materials and Carlisle Weatherproofing Technologies. The company's product portfolio includes moisture protection products, protective roofing unde...
Match Group, Inc. is an American internet and technology company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It owns and operates the largest global portfolio of popular online dating services including Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, Plenty of Fish, Azar, and other dating global brands. The company was owned by IAC until July 2020 when Match Group was spun off as a separate, public company. As of 2019, the company had 9.3 million subscribers, of which 4.6 million were in North America. Japan ...
CSL vs MTCH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.1B | $878.0M |
| Net Profit | $127.7M | $209.7M |
| Gross Margin | 34.5% | 74.7% |
| Operating Margin | 17.1% | 32.4% |
| Net Margin | 12.1% | 23.9% |
| Revenue YoY | -4.0% | 2.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -10.9% | 32.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $3.10 | $0.83 |
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 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $878.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $914.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $863.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $831.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $860.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $895.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5B | $864.1M |
| Q1 26 | $127.7M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $127.4M | $209.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $214.2M | $160.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $255.8M | $125.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $143.3M | $117.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $162.8M | $158.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $244.3M | $136.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $712.4M | $133.3M |
| Q1 26 | 34.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 33.8% | 74.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.0% | 73.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 37.3% | 72.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 35.2% | 71.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 36.1% | 72.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 38.6% | 71.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 39.2% | 71.6% |
| Q1 26 | 17.1% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 16.8% | 32.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 21.8% | 24.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 23.1% | 22.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.8% | 20.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 19.9% | 26.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 23.7% | 23.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 26.0% | 23.7% |
| Q1 26 | 12.1% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 11.3% | 23.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.9% | 17.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.6% | 14.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.1% | 14.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.5% | 18.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 18.3% | 15.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 49.1% | 15.4% |
| Q1 26 | $3.10 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.06 | $0.83 | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.98 | $0.62 | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.88 | $0.49 | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.20 | $0.44 | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.76 | $0.59 | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.25 | $0.51 | ||
| Q2 24 | $14.84 | $0.48 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $771.3M | $1.0B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $3.5B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.7B | $-253.5M |
| Total Assets | — | $4.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $771.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $68.4M | $340.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $220.2M | $414.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $753.5M | $970.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $860.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $843.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.9B | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.9B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.9B | $3.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.9B | $3.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.3B | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.3B | $3.8B |
| Q1 26 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.8B | $-253.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0B | $-223.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | $-230.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.2B | $-182.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.5B | $-63.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.8B | $-88.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.0B | $-130.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $6.3B | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.5B | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.5B | $3.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.5B | $3.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.8B | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.5B | $4.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.7B | $4.4B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.61× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.45× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.89× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.87× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.77× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.83× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.76× | — |
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 | — | $322.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-73.0M | $308.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -6.9% | 35.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.7% | 1.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 1.54× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $924.8M | $1.0B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $386.0M | $322.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $426.9M | $320.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $287.1M | $243.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8M | $193.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $370.6M | $254.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $312.8M | $264.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $183.4M | $129.0M |
| Q1 26 | $-73.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $346.1M | $308.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $393.4M | $306.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $258.3M | $231.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-27.2M | $177.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $334.0M | $247.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $293.5M | $251.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $158.5M | $116.3M |
| Q1 26 | -6.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 30.7% | 35.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 29.2% | 33.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.8% | 26.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | -2.5% | 21.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 29.7% | 28.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.0% | 28.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.9% | 13.5% |
| Q1 26 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 3.5% | 1.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.5% | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.0% | 1.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.6% | 1.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | 0.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.4% | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.7% | 1.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 3.03× | 1.54× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.99× | 1.99× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.12× | 1.94× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.01× | 1.64× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.28× | 1.61× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.28× | 1.94× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.26× | 0.97× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CSL
| CCM | $758.0M | 72% |
| CWT | $294.0M | 28% |
MTCH
| Tinder Segment | $479.3M | 55% |
| Hinge Segment | $186.5M | 21% |
| Evergreen And Emerging Segment | $148.1M | 17% |
| MG Asia Segment | $65.8M | 7% |
