vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Leonardo DRS, Inc. (DRS) and STAG Industrial, Inc. (STAG), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Leonardo DRS, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $220.9M, roughly 4.8× STAG Industrial, Inc.). STAG Industrial, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 9.6% vs 37.8%, a 28.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, STAG Industrial, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (10.8% vs 8.1%). Leonardo DRS, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($376.0M vs $43.8M). Over the past eight quarters, Leonardo DRS, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (24.1% CAGR vs 8.5%).
Leonardo DRS, Inc. is a United States–based defense contractor. Originally founded as DRS Technologies, Inc. and traded on the NYSE, it was acquired by Leonardo’s predecessor Finmeccanica in 2008. Leonardo DRS provides advanced defense technologies and systems primarily to the U.S. military.
Stag Arms is a firearms manufacturer founded in May 2003 and located in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Stag Arms is a manufacturer of the AR-15 type rifle, marketed as Stag-15 rifles. Stag advertises that all their weapons and accessories are made in the United States. They are best known for their left-handed AR-15 rifles, which use a mirror imaged upper receiver and have the ejection port reversed for left-handed shooters and the safety selector control on the right side of the lower receiver.
DRS vs STAG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.1B | $220.9M |
| Net Profit | $102.0M | $83.5M |
| Gross Margin | 25.4% | — |
| Operating Margin | 11.9% | — |
| Net Margin | 9.6% | 37.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 8.1% | 10.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | 14.6% | 63.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.38 | — |
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 | $1.1B | $220.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $960.0M | $211.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $829.0M | $207.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $799.0M | $205.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $981.0M | $199.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $812.0M | $190.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $753.0M | $189.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $688.0M | $187.5M |
| Q4 25 | $102.0M | $83.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $72.0M | $48.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $54.0M | $50.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $50.0M | $91.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $89.0M | $51.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $57.0M | $41.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $38.0M | $59.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $29.0M | $36.6M |
| Q4 25 | 25.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 23.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 23.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 22.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 22.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | 11.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | 9.6% | 37.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.5% | 23.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.5% | 24.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.3% | 44.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.1% | 25.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.0% | 21.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.0% | 31.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.2% | 19.5% |
| Q4 25 | $0.38 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.26 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.20 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.19 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.34 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.21 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.14 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.11 | — |
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 | $647.0M | $14.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $321.0M | $3.3B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.7B | $3.6B |
| Total Assets | $4.5B | $7.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.12× | 0.91× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $647.0M | $14.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $309.0M | $17.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $278.0M | $15.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $380.0M | $9.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $598.0M | $36.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $198.0M | $70.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $149.0M | $33.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $160.0M | $12.4M |
| Q4 25 | $321.0M | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $326.0M | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $331.0M | $3.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $335.0M | $3.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $340.0M | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $345.0M | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $351.0M | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $356.0M | $2.7B |
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.6B | $3.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $3.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.4B | $3.4B |
| Q4 25 | $4.5B | $7.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.2B | $6.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.1B | $6.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.1B | $6.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.2B | $6.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.9B | $6.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.8B | $6.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.8B | $6.3B |
| Q4 25 | 0.12× | 0.91× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.12× | 0.91× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.13× | 0.88× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.13× | 0.87× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.13× | 0.88× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.14× | 0.89× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.15× | 0.84× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.15× | 0.79× |
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 | $425.0M | $104.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $376.0M | $43.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 35.5% | 19.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 4.6% | 27.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 4.17× | 1.25× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $227.0M | $258.9M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $425.0M | $104.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $107.0M | $143.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-28.0M | $111.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-138.0M | $103.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $443.0M | $104.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $59.0M | $128.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $34.0M | $122.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-265.0M | $105.2M |
| Q4 25 | $376.0M | $43.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $77.0M | $95.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-56.0M | $62.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-170.0M | $57.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $414.0M | $37.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $47.0M | $86.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $0 | $105.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-275.0M | $80.5M |
| Q4 25 | 35.5% | 19.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.0% | 45.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.8% | 30.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -21.3% | 27.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 42.2% | 18.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.8% | 45.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.0% | 55.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -40.0% | 42.9% |
| Q4 25 | 4.6% | 27.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.1% | 22.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.4% | 23.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.0% | 22.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.0% | 33.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.5% | 21.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.5% | 9.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | 13.1% |
| Q4 25 | 4.17× | 1.25× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.49× | 2.95× | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.52× | 2.24× | ||
| Q1 25 | -2.76× | 1.13× | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.98× | 2.06× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.04× | 3.06× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.89× | 2.04× | ||
| Q1 24 | -9.14× | 2.87× |
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.
