vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC (EAT) and Pure Storage, Inc. (PSTG). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.5B vs $964.5M, roughly 1.5× Pure Storage, Inc.). BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC runs the higher net margin — 8.8% vs 5.7%, a 3.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Pure Storage, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (16.0% vs 6.9%). BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($155.2M vs $52.6M). Over the past eight quarters, BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC's revenue compounded faster (13.9% CAGR vs 10.5%).
Brinker International, Inc. is an American multinational hospitality industry company that owns Chili's and Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant chains. Founded in 1975 and based in Dallas, Texas, Brinker currently owns, operates, or franchises 1,672 restaurants under the names Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy worldwide.
Pure Storage, Inc. is an American publicly traded technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, United States. It develops all-flash data storage hardware and software products. Pure Storage was founded in 2009 and developed its products in stealth mode until 2011. Afterwards, the company grew in revenues by about 50% per quarter and raised more than $470 million in venture capital funding, before going public in 2015. Initially, Pure Storage developed the software for storage ...
EAT vs PSTG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2026 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.5B | $964.5M |
| Net Profit | $128.5M | $54.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | 72.3% |
| Operating Margin | 11.6% | 5.6% |
| Net Margin | 8.8% | 5.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.9% | 16.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 8.4% | -13.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.86 | $0.16 |
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.
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $964.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $861.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $778.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | $879.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $831.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $763.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $693.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1B | $789.8M |
| Q4 25 | $128.5M | $54.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $99.5M | $47.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $107.0M | $-14.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $119.1M | $42.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $118.5M | $63.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $38.5M | $35.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $57.3M | $-35.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $48.7M | $65.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | 72.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 70.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 68.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 67.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 70.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 70.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 71.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 72.0% |
| Q4 25 | 11.6% | 5.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.7% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.8% | -4.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.0% | 4.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.5% | 7.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.0% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.1% | -6.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.2% | 7.3% |
| Q4 25 | 8.8% | 5.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.4% | 5.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.3% | -1.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.4% | 4.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.7% | 7.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.4% | 4.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | -5.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.3% | 8.3% |
| Q4 25 | $2.86 | $0.16 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.17 | $0.14 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.31 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.56 | $0.13 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.61 | $0.19 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.84 | $0.10 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.22 | $-0.11 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.08 | $0.22 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $15.0M | $852.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $451.3M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $379.3M | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $2.7B | $4.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.19× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $15.0M | $852.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $33.6M | $887.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $18.9M | $739.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.5M | $723.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $14.8M | $894.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $16.2M | $965.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $64.6M | $900.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $15.5M | $702.5M |
| Q4 25 | $451.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $525.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $426.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $518.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $652.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $806.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $786.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $818.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | $379.3M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $343.9M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $370.9M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $259.0M | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $131.5M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.7M | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $39.4M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-46.7M | $1.3B |
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.7B | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7B | $3.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $4.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.6B | $3.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.5B | $3.7B |
| Q4 25 | 1.19× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.53× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.15× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.00× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.96× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 63.54× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.96× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $218.9M | $116.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $155.2M | $52.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 10.7% | 5.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 4.4% | 6.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.70× | 2.12× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $455.9M | $566.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $218.9M | $116.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $120.8M | $212.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $186.0M | $283.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $212.0M | $208.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $218.2M | $97.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $62.8M | $226.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $141.5M | $221.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $130.1M | $244.4M |
| Q4 25 | $155.2M | $52.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $62.2M | $150.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $106.1M | $211.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $132.4M | $152.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $168.9M | $35.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.3M | $166.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $83.5M | $172.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $78.7M | $200.9M |
| Q4 25 | 10.7% | 5.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.6% | 17.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.3% | 27.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.3% | 17.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.4% | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.6% | 21.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.9% | 24.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.0% | 25.4% |
| Q4 25 | 4.4% | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.3% | 7.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.5% | 9.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.6% | 6.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.6% | 7.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.0% | 7.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.8% | 7.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.6% | 5.5% |
| Q4 25 | 1.70× | 2.12× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.21× | 4.50× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.74× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.78× | 4.91× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.84× | 1.52× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.63× | 6.35× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.47× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.67× | 3.74× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
EAT
| Chilis Restaurants | $1.3B | 91% |
| Maggianos Restaurants | $134.9M | 9% |
| Franchise Revenues | $13.4M | 1% |
PSTG
| US | $683.2M | 71% |
| Non Us | $281.3M | 29% |
