vs

Side-by-side financial comparison of HELIOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (HLIO) and LIFETIME BRANDS, INC (LCUT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.

HELIOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($220.3M vs $204.1M, roughly 1.1× LIFETIME BRANDS, INC). LIFETIME BRANDS, INC runs the higher net margin — 8.9% vs 4.7%, a 4.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, HELIOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (13.3% vs -5.2%). HELIOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($18.6M vs $2.6M). Over the past eight quarters, LIFETIME BRANDS, INC's revenue compounded faster (19.8% CAGR vs 4.6%).

Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. was a publicly traded data analytics company based in New York City, New York. The company became widely known during its final years for acquiring and subsequently operating MoviePass, which ultimately led to the company's bankruptcy.

Yum! Brands, Inc. is an American multinational fast food corporation. It was formed in 1977 as a subsidiary of PepsiCo, after the company acquired KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell. PepsiCo divested the brands in 1997, and these consolidated as Yum!. The company operates KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Habit Burger & Grill, and several technology companies.

HLIO vs LCUT — Head-to-Head

Bigger by revenue
HLIO
HLIO
1.1× larger
HLIO
$220.3M
$204.1M
LCUT
Growing faster (revenue YoY)
HLIO
HLIO
+18.4% gap
HLIO
13.3%
-5.2%
LCUT
Higher net margin
LCUT
LCUT
4.2% more per $
LCUT
8.9%
4.7%
HLIO
More free cash flow
HLIO
HLIO
$16.0M more FCF
HLIO
$18.6M
$2.6M
LCUT
Faster 2-yr revenue CAGR
LCUT
LCUT
Annualised
LCUT
19.8%
4.6%
HLIO

Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025

Metric
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Revenue
$220.3M
$204.1M
Net Profit
$10.3M
$18.2M
Gross Margin
33.1%
38.6%
Operating Margin
0.6%
9.8%
Net Margin
4.7%
8.9%
Revenue YoY
13.3%
-5.2%
Net Profit YoY
-9.6%
103.5%
EPS (diluted)
$0.31
$0.83

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.

Revenue
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
$204.1M
Q3 25
$220.3M
$171.9M
Q2 25
$212.5M
$131.9M
Q1 25
$195.5M
$140.1M
Q4 24
$179.5M
$215.2M
Q3 24
$194.5M
$183.8M
Q2 24
$219.9M
$141.7M
Q1 24
$212.0M
$142.2M
Net Profit
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
$18.2M
Q3 25
$10.3M
$-1.2M
Q2 25
$11.4M
$-39.7M
Q1 25
$7.3M
$-4.2M
Q4 24
$4.8M
$8.9M
Q3 24
$11.4M
$344.0K
Q2 24
$13.6M
$-18.2M
Q1 24
$9.2M
$-6.3M
Gross Margin
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
38.6%
Q3 25
33.1%
35.1%
Q2 25
31.8%
38.6%
Q1 25
30.6%
36.1%
Q4 24
30.1%
37.7%
Q3 24
31.1%
36.7%
Q2 24
32.1%
38.5%
Q1 24
31.7%
40.5%
Operating Margin
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
9.8%
Q3 25
0.6%
3.9%
Q2 25
10.3%
-28.2%
Q1 25
8.7%
0.8%
Q4 24
7.4%
7.2%
Q3 24
11.4%
4.7%
Q2 24
11.8%
0.8%
Q1 24
9.6%
1.3%
Net Margin
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
8.9%
Q3 25
4.7%
-0.7%
Q2 25
5.4%
-30.1%
Q1 25
3.7%
-3.0%
Q4 24
2.7%
4.1%
Q3 24
5.9%
0.2%
Q2 24
6.2%
-12.8%
Q1 24
4.3%
-4.4%
EPS (diluted)
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
$0.83
Q3 25
$0.31
$-0.05
Q2 25
$0.34
$-1.83
Q1 25
$0.22
$-0.19
Q4 24
$0.14
$0.41
Q3 24
$0.34
$0.02
Q2 24
$0.41
$-0.85
Q1 24
$0.28
$-0.29

Balance Sheet & Financial Strength

Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.

Metric
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand
$54.9M
$4.3M
Total DebtLower is stronger
$420.0M
$135.0M
Stockholders' EquityBook value
$917.9M
$202.3M
Total Assets
$1.6B
$572.6M
Debt / EquityLower = less leverage
0.46×
0.67×

8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.

Cash + ST Investments
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
$4.3M
Q3 25
$54.9M
$12.1M
Q2 25
$53.0M
$12.0M
Q1 25
$45.9M
$10.4M
Q4 24
$44.1M
$2.9M
Q3 24
$46.7M
$6.0M
Q2 24
$45.0M
$3.4M
Q1 24
$37.3M
$4.6M
Total Debt
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
$135.0M
Q3 25
$420.0M
Q2 25
$437.2M
Q1 25
$446.7M
Q4 24
$450.6M
$142.5M
Q3 24
$484.7M
Q2 24
$504.0M
Q1 24
$521.8M
Stockholders' Equity
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
$202.3M
Q3 25
$917.9M
$184.6M
Q2 25
$911.7M
$185.8M
Q1 25
$881.2M
$225.7M
Q4 24
$864.4M
$229.9M
Q3 24
$885.5M
$220.9M
Q2 24
$866.5M
$219.8M
Q1 24
$856.6M
$223.7M
Total Assets
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
$572.6M
Q3 25
$1.6B
$581.1M
Q2 25
$1.6B
$551.9M
Q1 25
$1.5B
$594.6M
Q4 24
$1.5B
$634.3M
Q3 24
$1.6B
$668.7M
Q2 24
$1.6B
$617.0M
Q1 24
$1.6B
$602.7M
Debt / Equity
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
0.67×
Q3 25
0.46×
Q2 25
0.48×
Q1 25
0.51×
Q4 24
0.52×
0.62×
Q3 24
0.55×
Q2 24
0.58×
Q1 24
0.61×

Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency

How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.

Metric
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Operating Cash FlowLast quarter
$25.3M
$3.7M
Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex
$18.6M
$2.6M
FCF MarginFCF / Revenue
8.4%
1.3%
Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue
3.0%
0.6%
Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit
2.46×
0.21×
TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters
$91.3M
$3.3M

8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.

Operating Cash Flow
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
$3.7M
Q3 25
$25.3M
$-22.2M
Q2 25
$37.0M
$9.3M
Q1 25
$19.0M
$16.7M
Q4 24
$35.7M
$20.3M
Q3 24
$34.8M
$-22.7M
Q2 24
$33.8M
$10.4M
Q1 24
$17.8M
$10.5M
Free Cash Flow
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
$2.6M
Q3 25
$18.6M
$-22.7M
Q2 25
$31.6M
$8.2M
Q1 25
$12.9M
$15.1M
Q4 24
$28.2M
$19.7M
Q3 24
$28.8M
$-23.2M
Q2 24
$25.8M
$9.9M
Q1 24
$12.3M
$9.9M
FCF Margin
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
1.3%
Q3 25
8.4%
-13.2%
Q2 25
14.9%
6.2%
Q1 25
6.6%
10.8%
Q4 24
15.7%
9.1%
Q3 24
14.8%
-12.6%
Q2 24
11.7%
7.0%
Q1 24
5.8%
7.0%
Capex Intensity
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
0.6%
Q3 25
3.0%
0.3%
Q2 25
2.5%
0.9%
Q1 25
3.1%
1.1%
Q4 24
4.2%
0.3%
Q3 24
3.1%
0.3%
Q2 24
3.6%
0.4%
Q1 24
2.6%
0.4%
Cash Conversion
HLIO
HLIO
LCUT
LCUT
Q4 25
0.21×
Q3 25
2.46×
Q2 25
3.25×
Q1 25
2.60×
Q4 24
7.44×
2.28×
Q3 24
3.05×
-65.89×
Q2 24
2.49×
Q1 24
1.93×

Financial Flow Comparison

Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.

Revenue Breakdown by Segment

HLIO
HLIO

Hydraulics$141.3M64%
Electronics$79.0M36%

LCUT
LCUT

Kitchenware$114.3M56%
Tableware$41.7M20%
Home Solutions$29.4M14%
Other$18.8M9%

Related Comparisons