vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Garrett Motion Inc. (GTX) and LAMAR ADVERTISING CO (LAMR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Garrett Motion Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($891.0M vs $595.9M, roughly 1.5× LAMAR ADVERTISING CO). LAMAR ADVERTISING CO runs the higher net margin — 25.6% vs 9.4%, a 16.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Garrett Motion Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (5.6% vs 2.8%). LAMAR ADVERTISING CO produced more free cash flow last quarter ($208.3M vs $78.0M). Over the past eight quarters, LAMAR ADVERTISING CO's revenue compounded faster (9.4% CAGR vs -1.3%).
Garrett Motion Inc., formerly Honeywell Transportation Systems and Honeywell Turbo Technologies, is an American company primarily involved in engineering, development and manufacturing of turbochargers and related forced induction systems for ground vehicles from small passenger cars to large trucks and industrial equipment and construction machinery. It originated as part of Garrett AiResearch's Industrial Division in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1954, after which they entered a contract to provide ...
Lamar Advertising Company is an advertising company which operates billboards, logo signs, and transit displays in the United States and Canada. The company was founded in 1902 by Charles W. Lamar and J.M. Coe, and is headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The company has over 200 locations in the United States and Canada. They have reportedly more than 363,000 displays across the USA. Lamar Advertising Company became a real estate investment trust in 2014.
GTX vs LAMR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $891.0M | $595.9M |
| Net Profit | $84.0M | $152.3M |
| Gross Margin | 20.8% | 67.7% |
| Operating Margin | 11.6% | 32.9% |
| Net Margin | 9.4% | 25.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 5.6% | 2.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -16.0% | 12801.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.42 | $1.50 |
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 | $891.0M | $595.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $902.0M | $585.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $913.0M | $579.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $878.0M | $505.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $844.0M | $579.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $826.0M | $564.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $890.0M | $565.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $915.0M | $498.1M |
| Q4 25 | $84.0M | $152.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $77.0M | $141.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $87.0M | $154.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $62.0M | $138.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $100.0M | $-1.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $52.0M | $147.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $64.0M | $137.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $66.0M | $78.2M |
| Q4 25 | 20.8% | 67.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.6% | 67.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.8% | 67.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.4% | 64.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 21.6% | 67.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.1% | 67.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.8% | 67.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 18.8% | 64.7% |
| Q4 25 | 11.6% | 32.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.3% | 32.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.2% | 34.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.7% | 37.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.7% | 6.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.2% | 33.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.8% | 32.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.9% | 25.0% |
| Q4 25 | 9.4% | 25.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.5% | 24.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.5% | 26.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.1% | 27.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.8% | -0.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.3% | 26.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.2% | 24.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.2% | 15.7% |
| Q4 25 | $0.42 | $1.50 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.38 | $1.40 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.42 | $1.52 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.30 | $1.35 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.46 | $-0.02 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.24 | $1.44 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.28 | $1.34 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.28 | $0.76 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $177.0M | $64.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $-802.0M | $1.0B |
| Total Assets | $2.4B | $6.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $177.0M | $64.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $230.0M | $22.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $232.0M | $55.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $130.0M | $36.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $125.0M | $49.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $96.0M | $29.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $98.0M | $77.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $196.0M | $36.4M |
| Q4 25 | $-802.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-813.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $-812.0M | $906.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-700.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $-673.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $-778.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $-725.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-735.0M | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $2.4B | $6.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.4B | $6.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.4B | $6.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.3B | $6.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.3B | $6.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.2B | $6.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.2B | $6.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.4B | $6.5B |
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 | $99.0M | $271.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $78.0M | $208.3M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 8.8% | 35.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.4% | 10.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.18× | 1.78× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $341.0M | $683.2M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $99.0M | $271.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $100.0M | $235.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $158.0M | $229.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $56.0M | $127.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $131.0M | $279.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $67.0M | $227.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $126.0M | $256.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $84.0M | $110.6M |
| Q4 25 | $78.0M | $208.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $90.0M | $185.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $143.0M | $191.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $30.0M | $97.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $109.0M | $236.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $47.0M | $197.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $109.0M | $233.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $52.0M | $81.1M |
| Q4 25 | 8.8% | 35.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.0% | 31.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.7% | 33.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.4% | 19.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.9% | 40.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.7% | 35.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.2% | 41.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.7% | 16.3% |
| Q4 25 | 2.4% | 10.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | 8.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.6% | 6.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.0% | 5.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.6% | 7.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.4% | 5.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 4.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.5% | 5.9% |
| Q4 25 | 1.18× | 1.78× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.30× | 1.66× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.82× | 1.49× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.90× | 0.92× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.31× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.29× | 1.54× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.97× | 1.87× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.27× | 1.41× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
GTX
Segment breakdown not available.
LAMR
| Reportable Segment Aggregation Before Other Operating Segment | $531.9M | 89% |
| Transit Advertising | $42.0M | 7% |
| Logo Advertising | $22.1M | 4% |
