vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of FLAGSTAR BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (FLG) and Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp (ZWS). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
FLAGSTAR BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($498.0M vs $407.2M, roughly 1.2× Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp). Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp runs the higher net margin — 10.3% vs 4.2%, a 6.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.8% vs 1.6%). Over the past eight quarters, Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp's revenue compounded faster (4.4% CAGR vs -18.0%).
Flagstar Bank was an American commercial bank headquartered in Troy, Michigan. The bank was founded in 1987 and operated as a consumer and commercial bank, mortgage lender, and offered financial services. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. was acquired by New York Community Bancorp, Inc. on December 1, 2022. New York Community Bancorp subsequently rebranded all of its branches under the Flagstar name and changed its name to Flagstar Financial in 2024. In a corporate restructuring in 2025 Flagstar Financi...
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp designs, manufactures, and distributes a wide range of water management and dispensing products, including commercial plumbing fixtures, drinking fountains, water filtration systems, and flow control components. It serves commercial, residential, industrial, and public infrastructure markets primarily across North America, with a focus on delivering sustainable, water-efficient solutions for diverse end-user needs.
FLG vs ZWS — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $498.0M | $407.2M |
| Net Profit | $21.0M | $42.1M |
| Gross Margin | — | 44.4% |
| Operating Margin | 11.4% | 14.8% |
| Net Margin | 4.2% | 10.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 1.6% | 9.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -38.1% | 15.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.03 | $0.24 |
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 | $498.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $407.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $425.0M | $455.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $419.0M | $444.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $388.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $461.0M | $370.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $510.0M | $410.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $557.0M | $412.0M |
| Q1 26 | $21.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $42.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-36.0M | $61.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-70.0M | $50.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $43.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-188.0M | $36.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-280.0M | $43.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-323.0M | $46.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 44.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 44.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 45.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 46.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 43.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 46.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 45.2% |
| Q1 26 | 11.4% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 14.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | -9.6% | 17.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -19.3% | 17.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 16.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -51.6% | 13.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | -65.7% | 17.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -76.1% | 17.5% |
| Q1 26 | 4.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 10.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | -8.5% | 13.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -16.7% | 11.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 11.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -40.8% | 9.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -54.9% | 10.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | -58.0% | 11.2% |
| Q1 26 | $0.03 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $0.24 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | $0.36 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.19 | $0.29 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.26 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.11 | $0.21 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.79 | $0.25 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.14 | $0.27 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $300.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $496.5M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $8.1B | $1.6B |
| Total Assets | $87.1B | $2.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.31× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $300.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $23.6B | $260.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.9B | $201.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $144.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $25.8B | $198.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $33.6B | $187.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $29.5B | $162.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $496.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.2B | $496.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.2B | $495.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $495.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $14.4B | $495.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $20.3B | $495.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.9B | $495.5M |
| Q1 26 | $8.1B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.1B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.1B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.2B | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.6B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.4B | $1.6B |
| Q1 26 | $87.1B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $91.7B | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $92.2B | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $100.2B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $114.4B | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $119.1B | $2.7B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.31× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.63× | 0.31× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.63× | 0.32× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.32× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.77× | 0.31× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.37× | 0.31× | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.44× | 0.31× |
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 | — | $91.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 2.18× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $91.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $243.0M | $101.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $110.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $42.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $623.0M | $63.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.0B | $90.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $796.0M | $85.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 2.18× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.64× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.19× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.98× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.75× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.09× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.85× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
