vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of HELEN OF TROY LTD (HELE) and UMB FINANCIAL CORP (UMBF). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
UMB FINANCIAL CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($739.2M vs $512.8M, roughly 1.4× HELEN OF TROY LTD). UMB FINANCIAL CORP runs the higher net margin — 35.4% vs -16.4%, a 51.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, UMB FINANCIAL CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (31.1% vs -3.4%). Over the past eight quarters, UMB FINANCIAL CORP's revenue compounded faster (73.7% CAGR vs 2.4%).
Helen of Troy Limited is an American publicly traded designer, developer and worldwide marketer of consumer brand-name housewares, health and home, and beauty products under owned and licensed brands. It is the parent corporation of OXO International Ltd., Kaz, Inc., Steel Technology, LLC, and Idelle Labs, Ltd, among others. The company is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, with U.S. operations headquartered in El Paso, Texas. The company is named after the mythic figure Helen of Troy.
UMB Financial Corporation is an American financial services company headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. It offers comprehensive financial services, including deposit solutions like checking and savings accounts, credit services including home mortgages, auto loans, business loans and credit cards, as well as investing and wealth management. UMB serves individuals, companies and institutions across the U.S. and in Ireland.
HELE vs UMBF — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2026 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $512.8M | $739.2M |
| Net Profit | $-84.1M | $261.4M |
| Gross Margin | 46.9% | — |
| Operating Margin | -1.6% | — |
| Net Margin | -16.4% | 35.4% |
| Revenue YoY | -3.4% | 31.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -269.4% | 221.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-3.65 | $3.35 |
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 | — | $739.2M | ||
| Q4 25 | $512.8M | $522.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $431.8M | $475.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $371.7M | $467.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $485.9M | $397.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $530.7M | $269.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $474.2M | $247.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $416.8M | $245.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | $261.4M | ||
| Q4 25 | $-84.1M | $215.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-308.6M | $188.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-450.7M | $217.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $50.9M | $81.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $49.6M | $120.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $17.0M | $109.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.2M | $101.3M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 46.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 44.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 47.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 48.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 48.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 45.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 48.7% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -1.6% | 51.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -73.1% | 49.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -109.5% | 58.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.4% | 23.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.2% | 53.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.3% | 54.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.4% | 51.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | 35.4% | ||
| Q4 25 | -16.4% | 41.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -71.5% | 39.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -121.3% | 46.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.5% | 20.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.3% | 44.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.6% | 44.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.5% | 41.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | $3.35 | ||
| Q4 25 | $-3.65 | $2.90 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-13.44 | $2.36 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-19.65 | $2.82 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.20 | $1.21 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.17 | $2.44 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.74 | $2.23 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.26 | $2.07 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $27.1M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $477.2M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $852.3M | $7.8B |
| Total Assets | $2.3B | $72.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.06× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $27.1M | $7.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.4M | $8.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.7M | $11.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $18.9M | $10.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $40.8M | $8.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $20.1M | $7.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $16.1M | $5.0B |
| Q1 26 | — | $477.2M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $474.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $471.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $657.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $921.9M | $654.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $385.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $384.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $384.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | $7.8B | ||
| Q4 25 | $852.3M | $7.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $926.3M | $7.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $7.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.7B | $6.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.6B | $3.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5B | $3.2B |
| Q1 26 | — | $72.7B | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.3B | $73.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.4B | $71.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7B | $71.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.1B | $69.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $50.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.9B | $47.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.8B | $44.5B |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.06× | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.06× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.06× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.09× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.55× | 0.10× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.11× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.11× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.12× |
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 | $11.9M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $5.8M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 1.1% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 1.2% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $55.9M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $11.9M | $106.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-10.5M | $272.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $58.3M | $285.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $35.0M | $363.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.3M | $-66.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $44.6M | $123.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $25.3M | $112.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.8M | $95.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-21.9M | $257.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $45.0M | $270.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.1M | $354.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $191.0K | $-77.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $39.7M | $117.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $16.2M | $106.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.1% | 18.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -5.1% | 54.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.1% | 58.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.6% | 89.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.0% | -28.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.4% | 47.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.9% | 43.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.2% | 2.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.7% | 3.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.6% | 3.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.6% | 2.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.5% | 3.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.0% | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.2% | 2.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.49× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.45× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.31× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.69× | 4.46× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.17× | -0.56× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.62× | 1.13× | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.08× | 1.11× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
HELE
| Beauty Wellness | $283.2M | 55% |
| Home Outdoor | $229.6M | 45% |
UMBF
Segment breakdown not available.
