vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Farmmi, Inc. (FAMI) and Ferguson Enterprises Inc. /DE/ (FERG), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Ferguson Enterprises Inc. /DE/ is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($8.2B vs $16.1M, roughly 506.0× Farmmi, Inc.). Ferguson Enterprises Inc. /DE/ runs the higher net margin — -0.3% vs 7.0%, a 7.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Ferguson Enterprises Inc. /DE/ posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (5.1% vs -55.7%). Ferguson Enterprises Inc. /DE/ produced more free cash flow last quarter ($312.0M vs $14.6M).
Farmmi Inc. is a company that processes and sells agricultural products in China and abroad; it grows and markets shiitake and wood ear mushrooms and other edible fungi products, including bamboo fungi, chestnut mushroom, trumpet royale, hen of the woods, lawyer's wig, and lion's mane mushroom. It also operates Farmmi Jicai, an online store that sells edible fungi products under the Forasen and Farmmi Liangpin brands. In addition, the company exports dried whole and sliced shiitake mushrooms,...
Ferguson Enterprises Inc., headquartered in Newport News, Virginia and organized in Delaware, is the largest U.S. distributor of plumbing, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), appliances, and lighting to pipes, valves and fittings (PVF), and water and wastewater products. The company receives 95% of its revenue in the United States and 5% of its revenue in Canada. The company has 36,000 suppliers and operates from 11 regional distribution centers, four MDCs, approximately 5,900 f...
FAMI vs FERG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $16.1M | $8.2B |
| Net Profit | $-44.0K | $570.0M |
| Gross Margin | 5.0% | 30.7% |
| Operating Margin | -4.1% | 9.4% |
| Net Margin | -0.3% | 7.0% |
| Revenue YoY | -55.7% | 5.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -107.0% | 21.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.04 | $2.90 |
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 | — | $8.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $8.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $7.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $16.1M | $6.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $7.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $7.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $7.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $36.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $570.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $700.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $410.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-44.0K | $276.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $470.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $451.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $443.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $630.5K | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 30.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 31.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 31.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.0% | 29.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 30.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 31.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 30.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 9.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 10.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 8.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.1% | 6.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 8.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 10.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 8.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 7.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 8.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 5.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -0.3% | 4.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 6.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 5.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 6.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.90 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.53 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.07 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.04 | $1.38 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.34 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.23 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.18 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.20 | — |
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 | — | $526.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $166.4M | $6.1B |
| Total Assets | $230.4M | $17.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $526.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $674.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $519.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $764.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $601.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $571.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $6.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $5.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $5.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $166.4M | $5.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $5.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $5.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $5.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $164.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $17.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $17.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $17.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $230.4M | $16.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $16.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $16.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $171.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.72× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.70× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $14.6M | $430.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $14.6M | $312.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 90.1% | 3.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.1% | 1.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 0.75× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $430.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $541.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $682.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.6M | $340.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $345.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-14.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $312.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $605.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.6M | $259.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $268.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 7.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 90.1% | 3.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.1% | 1.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.75× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.77× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.66× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.23× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.73× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -23.63× | — |
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.
