vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of HACKETT GROUP, INC. (HCKT) and Namib Minerals (NAMM). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
HACKETT GROUP, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($68.8M vs $41.9M, roughly 1.6× Namib Minerals).
Hackett Limited is a British multi-channel retailer of clothing for men and boys, with a broad range of apparel and accessories. It was founded in 1983 in London, England. As of June 2019, the company had 160 stores globally, with its flagship store at 14 Savile Row in London. It is owned by both Lebanese holding company M1 Group and American L Capital Asia
Namib Minerals is a Namibia-based natural resources firm focused on exploration, development and extraction of high-demand mineral deposits including uranium, copper and lithium. It operates across licensed southern African sites, supplying raw materials to global clean energy, construction and electronics manufacturing sectors.
HCKT vs NAMM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q2 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $68.8M | $41.9M |
| Net Profit | $4.3M | — |
| Gross Margin | 70.8% | 45.7% |
| Operating Margin | 13.0% | 29.8% |
| Net Margin | 6.2% | — |
| Revenue YoY | -11.6% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 36.2% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.17 | — |
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 | $68.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $75.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $73.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $78.9M | $41.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $77.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $79.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $79.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $77.7M | — |
| Q1 26 | $4.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.7M | — |
| Q1 26 | 70.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 41.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 40.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 35.4% | 45.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 35.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 39.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 29.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 27.5% | — |
| Q1 26 | 13.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.8% | 29.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.1% | — |
| Q1 26 | 6.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 7.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.3% | — |
| Q1 26 | $0.17 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.20 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.09 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.06 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.11 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.11 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.31 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.31 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $78.8M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $66.0M | — |
| Total Assets | $204.4M | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.19× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $18.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $16.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.1M | — |
| Q1 26 | $78.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | $66.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $68.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $101.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $119.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $114.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $115.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $110.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $102.2M | — |
| Q1 26 | $204.4M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $206.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $200.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $200.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $191.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $193.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $190.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $187.5M | — |
| Q1 26 | 1.19× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
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 | — | $11.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $7.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 17.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 3.5% | 9.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $19.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.6M | $11.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $20.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $13.7M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.7M | $7.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.8M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.7% | 17.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.5% | — |
| Q1 26 | 3.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.4% | 9.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.1% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 3.41× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.47× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.40× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.33× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.79× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.23× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.57× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
HCKT
| Revenue before reimbursements | $36.4M | 53% |
| Other | $32.0M | 47% |
| Reimbursements | $405.0K | 1% |
NAMM
Segment breakdown not available.
