vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC (DGII) and Vera Bradley, Inc. (VRA). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($130.7M vs $62.3M, roughly 2.1× Vera Bradley, Inc.). DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC runs the higher net margin — 8.6% vs -19.9%, a 28.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (25.1% vs -22.7%). Over the past eight quarters, Vera Bradley, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (16.1% CAGR vs 11.5%).
Digi International, Inc. is an American Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) technology company based in Hopkins, Minnesota. Founded in 1985, they were best known in the early 1990s as a manufacturer of multi-line serial data serial cards for PC clones, allowing these machines to run multi-line bulletin board systems (BBSes). As this market began to wind down with the rise of the internet in the late 1990s, Digi began to concentrate on network attached devices and industrial monitoring.
Vera Bradley Sales, LLC is an American luggage and handbag design company, founded by Barbara Bradley Baekgaard and Patricia R. Miller in 1982. As of 2019, its home office is in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The company was named after Baekgaard's mother. Its original luxury cotton bag product lines have expanded to include fashion and home accessories, office supplies, and patterned gifts. Many items have distinctive florals, paisleys, or geometric prints with complementary linings, as well as elonga...
DGII vs VRA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2026 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $130.7M | $62.3M |
| Net Profit | $11.3M | $-12.4M |
| Gross Margin | 64.0% | 42.1% |
| Operating Margin | 13.1% | -19.6% |
| Net Margin | 8.6% | -19.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 25.1% | -22.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 7.7% | 3.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.29 | $-0.44 |
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 | $130.7M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $122.5M | $62.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $114.3M | $70.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $107.5M | $51.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $104.5M | $100.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $103.9M | $70.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $105.1M | $94.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $105.2M | $67.9M |
| Q1 26 | $11.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $11.7M | $-12.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0M | $-4.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.2M | $-33.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.5M | $-47.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.1M | $-12.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.9M | $5.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.7M | $-8.1M |
| Q1 26 | 64.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 62.4% | 42.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 63.9% | 50.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 63.5% | 44.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 62.1% | 45.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 62.0% | 54.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 61.1% | 49.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 59.2% | 50.1% |
| Q1 26 | 13.1% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 13.3% | -19.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.5% | -6.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.9% | -34.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.1% | -23.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.9% | -11.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.2% | 2.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.3% | -15.6% |
| Q1 26 | 8.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 9.6% | -19.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.7% | -6.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.5% | -64.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.0% | -47.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.7% | -18.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.3% | 6.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.2% | -12.0% |
| Q1 26 | $0.29 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.31 | $-0.44 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.26 | $-0.17 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.27 | $-1.20 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.28 | $-1.62 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.27 | $-0.46 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.32 | $0.19 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.26 | $-0.26 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $31.7M | $10.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $143.0M | $10.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $666.0M | $128.1M |
| Total Assets | $974.2M | $243.7M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.21× | 0.08× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $31.7M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $30.9M | $10.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $21.9M | $15.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.1M | $11.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $26.3M | $30.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $25.9M | $13.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $27.5M | $44.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.3M | $55.2M |
| Q1 26 | $143.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $135.0M | $10.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $159.2M | $10.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $40.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $70.0M | $0 | ||
| Q4 24 | $95.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $123.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $151.6M | — |
| Q1 26 | $666.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $649.2M | $128.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $636.1M | $140.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $621.5M | $146.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $605.2M | $179.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $590.7M | $225.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $581.0M | $242.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $563.1M | $245.9M |
| Q1 26 | $974.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $918.4M | $243.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $922.6M | $266.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $770.3M | $267.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $781.0M | $306.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $796.1M | $359.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $815.1M | $379.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $820.4M | $368.7M |
| Q1 26 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.21× | 0.08× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.25× | 0.07× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.06× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.12× | 0.00× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.16× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.27× | — |
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 | $77.1M | $-4.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-4.5M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -7.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 0.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 6.82× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-13.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $77.1M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $35.6M | $-4.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $28.0M | $-5.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $24.0M | $-17.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $26.3M | $21.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $29.7M | $-22.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $26.4M | $1.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $24.9M | $-14.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $35.2M | $-4.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $27.5M | $-6.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.9M | $-19.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.7M | $17.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $29.1M | $-25.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $25.5M | $-1.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $24.5M | $-15.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 28.7% | -7.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.1% | -8.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 21.3% | -38.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 24.6% | 17.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 28.1% | -35.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 24.3% | -1.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.2% | -22.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.4% | 0.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | 1.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.9% | 3.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.5% | 4.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.6% | 3.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.9% | 3.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.5% | 1.3% |
| Q1 26 | 6.82× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 3.04× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.81× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.34× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.50× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.95× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.23× | 0.25× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.57× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
DGII
Segment breakdown not available.
VRA
| Bags | $23.9M | 38% |
| Indirect | $12.6M | 20% |
| Transferred At Point In Time | $12.2M | 20% |
| Accessories | $7.2M | 12% |
| Home | $3.5M | 6% |
| Apparel Footwear | $1.8M | 3% |
| Other Products | $1.5M | 2% |
