vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of EPAM Systems (EPAM) and Match Group (MTCH). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
EPAM Systems is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.4B vs $878.0M, roughly 1.6× Match Group). Match Group runs the higher net margin — 23.9% vs 7.8%, a 16.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, EPAM Systems posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (12.8% vs 2.1%). Match Group produced more free cash flow last quarter ($308.1M vs $268.1M). Over the past eight quarters, EPAM Systems's revenue compounded faster (9.9% CAGR vs 1.1%).
EPAM Systems, Inc. is an American company that specializes in software engineering services, digital platform engineering, and digital product design, operating out of Newtown, Pennsylvania. EPAM is a founding member of the MACH Alliance.
Match Group, Inc. is an American internet and technology company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It owns and operates the largest global portfolio of popular online dating services including Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, Plenty of Fish, Azar, and other dating global brands. The company was owned by IAC until July 2020 when Match Group was spun off as a separate, public company. As of 2019, the company had 9.3 million subscribers, of which 4.6 million were in North America. Japan ...
EPAM vs MTCH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.4B | $878.0M |
| Net Profit | $109.4M | $209.7M |
| Gross Margin | 30.1% | 74.7% |
| Operating Margin | 10.6% | 32.4% |
| Net Margin | 7.8% | 23.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 12.8% | 2.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 5.9% | 32.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.97 | $0.83 |
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 | $1.4B | $878.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $914.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $863.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $831.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $860.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $895.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $864.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.2B | $859.6M |
| Q4 25 | $109.4M | $209.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $106.8M | $160.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $88.0M | $125.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $73.5M | $117.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $103.3M | $158.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $136.3M | $136.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $98.6M | $133.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $116.2M | $123.2M |
| Q4 25 | 30.1% | 74.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 29.5% | 73.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 28.8% | 72.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 26.9% | 71.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 30.4% | 72.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 34.6% | 71.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 29.3% | 71.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 28.4% | 70.1% |
| Q4 25 | 10.6% | 32.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.4% | 24.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.3% | 22.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.6% | 20.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.9% | 26.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.2% | 23.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.5% | 23.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.5% | 21.5% |
| Q4 25 | 7.8% | 23.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.7% | 17.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.5% | 14.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.6% | 14.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.3% | 18.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.7% | 15.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.6% | 15.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.0% | 14.3% |
| Q4 25 | $1.97 | $0.83 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.91 | $0.62 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.56 | $0.49 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.28 | $0.44 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.80 | $0.59 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.37 | $0.51 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.70 | $0.48 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.97 | $0.44 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.3B | $1.0B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $3.5B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.7B | $-253.5M |
| Total Assets | $4.9B | $4.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $340.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $414.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $970.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | $860.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $843.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.0B | $920.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.8B |
| Q4 25 | $3.7B | $-253.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.7B | $-223.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.7B | $-230.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.6B | $-182.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.6B | $-63.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.6B | $-88.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.4B | $-130.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.5B | $-107.8M |
| Q4 25 | $4.9B | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.8B | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.7B | $3.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.7B | $3.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.8B | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.5B | $4.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $4.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.4B | $4.4B |
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 | $282.9M | $322.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $268.1M | $308.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 19.0% | 35.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 1.1% | 1.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 2.59× | 1.54× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $612.7M | $1.0B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $282.9M | $322.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $294.7M | $320.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $53.2M | $243.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $24.2M | $193.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $130.3M | $254.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $242.0M | $264.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $57.0M | $129.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $129.9M | $284.1M |
| Q4 25 | $268.1M | $308.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $286.4M | $306.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $43.4M | $231.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.8M | $177.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $114.5M | $247.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $237.0M | $251.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $52.3M | $116.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $123.2M | $266.9M |
| Q4 25 | 19.0% | 35.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.5% | 33.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.2% | 26.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.1% | 21.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.2% | 28.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.3% | 28.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.6% | 13.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.6% | 31.0% |
| Q4 25 | 1.1% | 1.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.6% | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.7% | 1.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.7% | 1.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.3% | 0.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.4% | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.4% | 1.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.6% | 2.0% |
| Q4 25 | 2.59× | 1.54× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.76× | 1.99× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.60× | 1.94× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.33× | 1.64× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.26× | 1.61× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.77× | 1.94× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.58× | 0.97× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.12× | 2.31× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
EPAM
Segment breakdown not available.
MTCH
| Tinder Segment | $479.3M | 55% |
| Hinge Segment | $186.5M | 21% |
| Evergreen And Emerging Segment | $148.1M | 17% |
| MG Asia Segment | $65.8M | 7% |
