vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC (DGII) and Zebra Technologies (ZBRA), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Zebra Technologies is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.5B vs $122.5M, roughly 12.0× DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC). DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC runs the higher net margin — 9.6% vs 4.7%, a 4.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (17.9% vs 10.6%). Zebra Technologies produced more free cash flow last quarter ($327.0M vs $35.2M). Over the past eight quarters, Zebra Technologies's revenue compounded faster (12.0% CAGR vs 6.6%).
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.
Zebra Technologies Corporation (ZBR), commonly known as Zebra, is an American multinational technology conglomerate corporation specializing in smart data capture systems. Zebra is headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois outside of Chicago with 10,700 employees across 57 countries.
DGII vs ZBRA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $122.5M | $1.5B |
| Net Profit | $11.7M | $70.0M |
| Gross Margin | 62.4% | 47.3% |
| Operating Margin | 13.3% | 9.4% |
| Net Margin | 9.6% | 4.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 17.9% | 10.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | 16.1% | -57.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.31 | $1.40 |
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 | $122.5M | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $114.3M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $107.5M | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $104.5M | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $103.9M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $105.1M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $105.2M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $107.7M | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $11.7M | $70.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0M | $101.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.2M | $112.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.5M | $136.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.1M | $163.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.9M | $137.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.7M | $113.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.0M | $115.0M |
| Q4 25 | 62.4% | 47.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 63.9% | 48.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 63.5% | 47.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 62.1% | 49.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 62.0% | 48.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 61.1% | 48.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 59.2% | 48.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 57.9% | 47.9% |
| Q4 25 | 13.3% | 9.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.5% | 13.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.9% | 14.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.1% | 14.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.9% | 16.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.2% | 15.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.3% | 13.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.6% | 13.5% |
| Q4 25 | 9.6% | 4.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.7% | 7.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.5% | 8.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.0% | 10.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.7% | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.3% | 10.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.2% | 9.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.7% | 9.8% |
| Q4 25 | $0.31 | $1.40 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.26 | $1.97 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.27 | $2.19 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.28 | $2.62 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.27 | $3.14 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.32 | $2.64 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.26 | $2.17 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.11 | $2.23 |
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 | $30.9M | $125.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $135.0M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $649.2M | $3.6B |
| Total Assets | $918.4M | $8.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.21× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $30.9M | $125.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $21.9M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.1M | $872.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $26.3M | $879.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $25.9M | $901.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $27.5M | $676.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.3M | $411.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $23.8M | $127.0M |
| Q4 25 | $135.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $159.2M | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $40.1M | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $70.0M | $2.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $95.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $123.2M | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $151.6M | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $171.8M | $2.1B |
| Q4 25 | $649.2M | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $636.1M | $3.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $621.5M | $3.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $605.2M | $3.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $590.7M | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $581.0M | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $563.1M | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $549.6M | $3.2B |
| Q4 25 | $918.4M | $8.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $922.6M | $8.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $770.3M | $7.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $781.0M | $7.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $796.1M | $8.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $815.1M | $7.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $820.4M | $7.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $825.3M | $7.3B |
| Q4 25 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.25× | 0.58× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.06× | 0.60× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.12× | 0.60× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.16× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.21× | 0.64× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.27× | 0.66× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.31× | 0.66× |
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 | $35.6M | $357.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $35.2M | $327.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 28.7% | 22.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.4% | 2.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 3.04× | 5.10× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $111.4M | $831.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $35.6M | $357.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $28.0M | $235.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $24.0M | $147.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $26.3M | $178.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $29.7M | $306.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $26.4M | $294.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $24.9M | $288.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $13.1M | $125.0M |
| Q4 25 | $35.2M | $327.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $27.5M | $216.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.9M | $130.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.7M | $158.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $29.1M | $288.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $25.5M | $277.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $24.5M | $278.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.5M | $111.0M |
| Q4 25 | 28.7% | 22.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.1% | 16.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 21.3% | 10.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 24.6% | 12.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 28.1% | 21.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 24.3% | 22.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.2% | 22.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.6% | 9.4% |
| Q4 25 | 0.4% | 2.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.9% | 1.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.5% | 1.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.6% | 1.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.9% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.5% | 0.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.5% | 1.2% |
| Q4 25 | 3.04× | 5.10× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.81× | 2.33× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.34× | 1.31× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.50× | 1.31× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.95× | 1.88× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.23× | 2.15× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.57× | 2.55× | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.27× | 1.09× |
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.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
DGII
| Io T Productsand Services | $86.4M | 71% |
| Io T Solutions | $36.1M | 29% |
ZBRA
| Tangible Products | $1.2B | 83% |
| Service And Software | $255.0M | 17% |
