vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Figma, Inc. (FIG) and HAVERTY FURNITURE COMPANIES INC (HVT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Figma, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($274.2M vs $201.9M, roughly 1.4× HAVERTY FURNITURE COMPANIES INC). HAVERTY FURNITURE COMPANIES INC runs the higher net margin — 4.2% vs -400.1%, a 404.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Figma, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (38.0% vs 9.5%). Figma, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($49.5M vs $3.0M).
Figma is a collaborative web application for interface design, with additional offline features enabled by desktop applications for macOS and Windows. The feature set of Figma focuses on user interface and user experience design, with an emphasis on real-time collaboration, utilizing a variety of vector graphics editor and prototyping tools. The Figma mobile app for Android and iOS allows viewing and interacting with Figma prototypes in real-time on mobile and tablet devices.
Furniture Brands International, Inc. was a home furnishings company, headquartered in Clayton, Missouri. The company began in 1911 as International Shoe Company with the merger of Roberts, Johnson & Rand Shoe Company and Peters Shoe Company. In 1966, the company changed its name to Interco as the result of diversification, and once the company exited the shoe business, adopted the name Furniture Brands International. Some of the brands it owned in the furniture industry included Broyhill, Tho...
FIG vs HVT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $274.2M | $201.9M |
| Net Profit | $-1.1B | $8.5M |
| Gross Margin | 69.4% | 60.4% |
| Operating Margin | -414.6% | 5.3% |
| Net Margin | -400.1% | 4.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 38.0% | 9.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | -6933.0% | 4.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.72 | — |
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 | — | $201.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $274.2M | $194.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $249.6M | $181.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $181.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $184.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $198.6M | $175.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $177.2M | $178.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $184.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $8.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.1B | $4.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $28.2M | $2.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $8.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-15.6M | $4.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-827.9M | $4.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | 60.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 69.4% | 60.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 88.8% | 60.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 61.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 61.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 90.6% | 60.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 77.7% | 60.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 60.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 5.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | -414.6% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.8% | 2.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 5.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -23.8% | 3.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -504.7% | 3.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -400.1% | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.3% | 1.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 4.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -7.9% | 2.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -467.2% | 2.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.72 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.00 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.07 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-4.39 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.6B | $125.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.4B | $307.9M |
| Total Assets | $2.1B | $649.1M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $125.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | $130.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | $107.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $111.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $120.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $416.1M | $121.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $586.1M | $109.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $111.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $307.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $306.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $304.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $305.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $307.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $307.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $862.4M | $307.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $306.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $649.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.1B | $651.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.0B | $642.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $642.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $648.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $659.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $642.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $640.5M |
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 | $51.2M | $7.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $49.5M | $3.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 18.0% | 1.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.6% | 2.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 0.86× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $33.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $7.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $51.2M | $31.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $7.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $6.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $16.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $24.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $14.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.5M | $28.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $27.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $9.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $16.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $4.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-3.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.0% | 14.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 9.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 2.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -1.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.6% | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 4.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 5.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 3.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.86× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 6.75× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.69× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.63× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.06× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 4.96× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 3.25× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.31× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
FIG
| Non Us | $147.4M | 54% |
| US | $126.8M | 46% |
HVT
| Upholstery | $91.0M | 45% |
| Bedroom Furniture | $29.2M | 14% |
| Accessories And Other | $28.4M | 14% |
| Dining Room Furniture | $22.8M | 11% |
| Mattresses | $16.1M | 8% |
| Occasional | $14.4M | 7% |
