vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Dexcom (DXCM) and Ralph Lauren Corporation (RL). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Ralph Lauren Corporation is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.4B vs $1.3B, roughly 1.9× Dexcom). Dexcom runs the higher net margin — 21.2% vs 15.0%, a 6.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Dexcom posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (21.6% vs 12.2%). Over the past eight quarters, Ralph Lauren Corporation's revenue compounded faster (23.9% CAGR vs 12.0%).
Dexcom, Inc. is an American multinational healthcare company that develops, manufactures, produces and distributes a line of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems for diabetes management. It operates internationally with global headquarters and R&D center in San Diego, California, U.S.A. and manufacturing facilities in Mesa, Arizona, U.S.A.; Batu Kawan, Malaysia and Athenry, County Galway, Ireland.
Ralph Lauren is an American fashion designer, philanthropist, and billionaire businessman, best known for founding the brand Ralph Lauren, a global multibillion-dollar enterprise. He stepped down as CEO of the company in September 2015 but remains executive chairman and chief creative officer. As of May 2025, his net worth is estimated at US$11.9 billion.
DXCM vs RL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.3B | $2.4B |
| Net Profit | $267.3M | $361.6M |
| Gross Margin | 62.9% | 69.9% |
| Operating Margin | 25.6% | 19.6% |
| Net Margin | 21.2% | 15.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 21.6% | 12.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | 153.6% | 21.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.67 | $5.82 |
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 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $994.2M | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $1.5B |
| Q1 26 | $267.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $267.3M | $361.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $283.8M | $207.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $179.8M | $220.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $105.4M | $129.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $151.7M | $297.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $134.6M | $147.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $143.5M | $168.6M |
| Q1 26 | 62.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 62.9% | 69.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 60.5% | 68.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 59.5% | 72.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 56.9% | 68.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 58.9% | 68.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 59.7% | 67.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 62.4% | 70.5% |
| Q1 26 | 25.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 25.6% | 19.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.1% | 12.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.4% | 15.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.9% | 9.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.0% | 18.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.3% | 10.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.7% | 13.8% |
| Q1 26 | 21.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 21.2% | 15.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 23.5% | 10.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.5% | 12.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.2% | 7.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.6% | 13.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.5% | 8.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.3% | 11.1% |
| Q1 26 | $0.67 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.67 | $5.82 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.70 | $3.32 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.45 | $3.52 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.27 | $2.03 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.37 | $4.66 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.34 | $2.31 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.35 | $2.61 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $917.7M | $2.3B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.7B | $2.9B |
| Total Assets | $6.3B | $7.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $917.7M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $917.7M | $2.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.8B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $904.9M | $2.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $606.1M | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $621.2M | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $939.2M | $1.8B |
| Q1 26 | $2.7B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.7B | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.6B | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.3B | $2.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.1B | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.0B | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4B | $2.4B |
| Q1 26 | $6.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $6.3B | $7.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.5B | $7.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.3B | $7.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.8B | $7.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.5B | $7.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.4B | $6.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.8B | $6.6B |
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 | — | $779.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $704.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 29.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 3.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 2.16× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $694.5M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $294.0M | $779.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $659.9M | $53.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $303.0M | $176.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $183.8M | $122.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $301.4M | $738.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $199.5M | $97.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $279.4M | $277.3M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $192.1M | $704.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $579.4M | $-40.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $208.9M | $-11.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $96.8M | $42.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $176.8M | $677.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $88.3M | $55.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $213.3M | $243.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 15.3% | 29.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 47.9% | -2.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.1% | -0.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.3% | 2.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 15.9% | 31.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.9% | 3.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.2% | 16.1% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 8.1% | 3.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.7% | 4.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.1% | 10.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.4% | 4.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.2% | 2.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.2% | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.6% | 2.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.10× | 2.16× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.33× | 0.26× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.69× | 0.80× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.74× | 0.95× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.99× | 2.48× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.48× | 0.66× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.95× | 1.64× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
