vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Fossil Group, Inc. (FOSL) and SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP (SXT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($435.8M vs $270.2M, roughly 1.6× Fossil Group, Inc.). SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP runs the higher net margin — 10.1% vs -14.8%, a 25.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.1% vs -21.1%). Over the past eight quarters, SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP's revenue compounded faster (3.9% CAGR vs -11.4%).
Fossil Group, Inc., is an American fashion design and manufacturer founded in 1984 by Tom Kartsotis and based in Richardson, Texas. Their brands include Fossil, Relic, Michele Watch, Skagen Denmark, WSI, and Zodiac Watches. Fossil also makes licensed accessories for brands such as BMW, Puma, Emporio Armani, Michael Kors, DKNY, Diesel, Kate Spade New York, Tory Burch, Chaps, and Armani Exchange.
Sensient Technologies is a global manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and fragrances based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Their products are used in many foods and beverages, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, home and personal care products, specialty printing and imaging products, computer imaging and industrial colors. Sensient reported revenue of $1,468 million in 2013. Subdivisions include the Sensient Flavors & Fragrances Group and the Sensient Color Group. Within the Flavors & Fragrances G...
FOSL vs SXT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $270.2M | $435.8M |
| Net Profit | $-40.0M | $44.2M |
| Gross Margin | 49.0% | — |
| Operating Margin | -8.0% | 15.3% |
| Net Margin | -14.8% | 10.1% |
| Revenue YoY | -21.1% | 11.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -257.8% | 28.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.76 | $1.04 |
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 | — | $435.8M | ||
| Q4 25 | $270.2M | $393.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $220.4M | $412.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $233.3M | $414.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $392.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $342.3M | $376.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $287.8M | $392.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $260.0M | $403.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | $44.2M | ||
| Q4 25 | $-40.0M | $25.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.1M | $37.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-17.9M | $37.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $34.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-11.2M | $30.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-31.9M | $32.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-38.8M | $30.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 49.0% | 31.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 57.5% | 34.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 61.3% | 34.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 33.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 53.9% | 31.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 49.4% | 33.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 52.6% | 32.4% |
| Q1 26 | — | 15.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | -8.0% | 9.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.9% | 14.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.9% | 13.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 13.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -4.8% | 11.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -8.5% | 12.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -13.1% | 12.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | 10.1% | ||
| Q4 25 | -14.8% | 6.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | -1.0% | 9.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -7.7% | 9.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 8.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | -3.3% | 8.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -11.1% | 8.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -14.9% | 7.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | $1.04 | ||
| Q4 25 | $-0.76 | $0.60 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.04 | $0.87 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.33 | $0.88 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.81 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.15 | $0.71 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.60 | $0.77 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.73 | $0.73 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $79.2M | $38.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $169.1M | $767.8M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $112.6M | $1.2B |
| Total Assets | $701.0M | $2.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.50× | 0.63× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $38.5M | ||
| Q4 25 | $79.2M | $36.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $109.9M | $42.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $78.3M | $56.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $32.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $123.6M | $26.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $106.3M | $37.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $104.9M | $30.3M |
| Q1 26 | — | $767.8M | ||
| Q4 25 | $169.1M | $709.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $165.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $167.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $162.7M | $613.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $173.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $156.5M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 25 | $112.6M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $150.3M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $140.6M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $148.7M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $164.4M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $189.6M | $1.1B |
| Q1 26 | — | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 25 | $701.0M | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $704.5M | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $686.0M | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $763.6M | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $812.4M | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $785.7M | $2.0B |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.63× | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.50× | 0.59× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.10× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.19× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.09× | 0.58× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.06× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.83× | — |
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 | $-22.2M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-22.5M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -8.3% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.1% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-46.0M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-22.2M | $44.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.4M | $44.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-60.4M | $48.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-9.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $30.5M | $21.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-22.8M | $76.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $38.4M | $43.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-22.5M | $12.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.6M | $24.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-60.6M | $27.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-25.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $28.5M | $-1.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-24.1M | $63.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $36.6M | $32.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -8.3% | 3.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.9% | 5.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -26.0% | 6.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -6.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.3% | -0.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | -8.4% | 16.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.1% | 7.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.1% | 8.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | 4.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.1% | 5.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 4.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.6% | 6.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.4% | 3.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.7% | 2.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 1.75× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.19× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.28× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -0.26× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.71× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.35× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.42× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
FOSL
| Transferred At Point In Time | $109.7M | 41% |
| Traditional Watches | $91.3M | 34% |
| Other | $50.8M | 19% |
| Leathers | $9.5M | 4% |
| Jewelry | $4.0M | 1% |
| Smartwatches | $3.3M | 1% |
| Products Other | $1.6M | 1% |
SXT
Segment breakdown not available.
