vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of HACKETT GROUP, INC. (HCKT) and Under Armour, Inc. (UA), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Under Armour, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.3B vs $75.8M, roughly 17.5× HACKETT GROUP, INC.). HACKETT GROUP, INC. runs the higher net margin — 7.4% vs -32.4%, a 39.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, HACKETT GROUP, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-4.4% vs -5.2%). Over the past eight quarters, Under Armour, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (-0.2% CAGR vs -0.9%).
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
Under Armour, Inc. is an American sportswear company that manufactures footwear and apparel headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
HCKT vs UA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $75.8M | $1.3B |
| Net Profit | $5.6M | $-430.8M |
| Gross Margin | 41.7% | 44.4% |
| Operating Margin | 12.0% | -11.3% |
| Net Margin | 7.4% | -32.4% |
| Revenue YoY | -4.4% | -5.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | 56.9% | -35013.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.20 | $-1.01 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $75.8M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $73.1M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $78.9M | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $77.9M | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $79.2M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $79.8M | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $77.7M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $77.2M | $1.3B |
| Q4 25 | $5.6M | $-430.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5M | $-18.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7M | $-2.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.1M | $-67.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.6M | $1.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.6M | $170.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.7M | $-305.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.7M | $6.6M |
| Q4 25 | 41.7% | 44.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 40.7% | 47.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 35.4% | 48.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 35.8% | 46.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 39.4% | 47.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 29.2% | 49.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 27.5% | 47.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 26.2% | 45.0% |
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | -11.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.5% | 1.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.8% | 0.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.7% | -6.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.8% | 1.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.0% | 12.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.1% | -25.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 14.9% | -0.3% |
| Q4 25 | 7.4% | -32.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.5% | -1.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.1% | -0.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.0% | -5.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.5% | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.8% | 12.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.3% | -25.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.3% | 0.5% |
| Q4 25 | $0.20 | $-1.01 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.09 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.06 | $-0.01 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.11 | $-0.16 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.11 | $0.00 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.31 | $0.39 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.31 | $-0.70 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.32 | $0.02 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $18.2M | $464.6M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $989.7M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $68.1M | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $206.4M | $4.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.69× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $18.2M | $464.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.9M | $396.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.1M | $911.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.2M | $501.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $16.4M | $726.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.0M | $530.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.1M | $884.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $13.0M | $858.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $989.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $989.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $595.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $595.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $594.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $595.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $675.8M |
| Q4 25 | $68.1M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $101.6M | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $119.8M | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $114.4M | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $115.6M | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $110.9M | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $102.2M | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $93.5M | $2.2B |
| Q4 25 | $206.4M | $4.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $200.7M | $4.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $200.5M | $4.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $191.8M | $4.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $193.3M | $4.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $190.8M | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $187.5M | $4.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $179.3M | $4.8B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.69× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.64× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.53× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.31× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.30× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.30× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.33× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.31× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $19.1M | $278.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $261.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 19.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 1.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 3.41× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-45.9M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $19.1M | $278.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.4M | $-69.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.6M | $48.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.2M | $-202.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $20.6M | $311.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.6M | $-321.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $13.7M | $153.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.8M | $-122.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | $261.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-90.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.7M | $13.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6M | $-231.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.6M | $262.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.3M | $-367.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.8M | $107.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.8M | $-156.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | 19.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -6.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.7% | 1.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.4% | -19.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.8% | 18.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.7% | -26.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.5% | 9.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.4% | -11.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.4% | 3.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.0% | 2.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.3% | 3.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.5% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.1% | 3.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.2% | 2.5% |
| Q4 25 | 3.41× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.47× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.40× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.33× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.79× | 252.26× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.23× | -1.89× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.57× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.32× | -18.71× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
HCKT
| Global S And BT | $39.1M | 52% |
| Sap Solutions | $22.4M | 30% |
| Consulting And Software Support And Maintenance | $14.3M | 19% |
UA
| Apparel | $934.0M | 70% |
| Footwear | $265.1M | 20% |
| Accessories | $107.7M | 8% |
| License | $27.2M | 2% |
