vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Interpublic Group of Companies (The) (IPG) and Take-Two Interactive (TTWO), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Interpublic Group of Companies (The) is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.1B vs $1.7B, roughly 1.3× Take-Two Interactive). Interpublic Group of Companies (The) runs the higher net margin — 5.8% vs -5.5%, a 11.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Take-Two Interactive posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (24.9% vs -4.8%). Take-Two Interactive produced more free cash flow last quarter ($236.2M vs $153.6M). Over the past eight quarters, Take-Two Interactive's revenue compounded faster (10.2% CAGR vs -9.1%).
Interpublic Group of Companies (The)IPGEarnings & Financial Report
The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (IPG) was an American advertising company based in New York City. It consisted of the five major networks FCB, IPG Mediabrands, McCann Worldgroup, MullenLowe Group and Marketing Specialists, as well as several independent specialty agencies in the areas of public relations, sports marketing, talent representation and healthcare. Prior to the Omnicom acquisition, it was one of the "Big Four" agency companies, alongside WPP, Publicis, and Omnicom. The co...
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is an American video game holding company based in New York City founded by Ryan Brant in September 1993.
IPG vs TTWO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2025 vs Q3 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.1B | $1.7B |
| Net Profit | $124.2M | $-92.9M |
| Gross Margin | — | 55.7% |
| Operating Margin | 10.3% | -2.3% |
| Net Margin | 5.8% | -5.5% |
| Revenue YoY | -4.8% | 24.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 517.9% | 25.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.34 | $-0.50 |
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 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.1B | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.2B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.3B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.2B | $1.4B |
| Q4 25 | — | $-92.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $124.2M | $-133.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $162.5M | $-11.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-85.4M | $-3.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $344.5M | $-125.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $20.1M | $-365.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $214.5M | $-262.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $110.4M | $-2.9B |
| Q4 25 | — | 55.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 55.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 62.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -3.2% | 50.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.1% | 55.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.9% | 53.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.2% | 57.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -1.1% | 33.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | -2.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.3% | -5.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.2% | 1.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -2.1% | -238.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 23.3% | -9.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.9% | -22.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.7% | -13.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.4% | -193.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | -5.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.8% | -7.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.5% | -0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.3% | -235.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.1% | -9.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.9% | -27.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.2% | -19.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.1% | -207.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-0.50 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.34 | $-0.73 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.44 | $-0.07 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.23 | $-21.27 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.92 | $-0.71 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.05 | $-2.08 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.57 | $-1.52 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.29 | $-17.05 |
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 | $1.5B | $2.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.7B | $3.5B |
| Total Assets | $17.0B | $10.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.9B | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $879.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5B | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.9B | $776.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.7B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.7B | $3.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.6B | $2.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.8B | $5.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.7B | $5.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.8B | $6.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.8B | $5.7B |
| Q4 25 | — | $10.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $17.0B | $10.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.0B | $9.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.1B | $9.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $18.3B | $12.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $17.1B | $13.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $17.0B | $12.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.3B | $12.2B |
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 | $180.1M | $305.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $153.6M | $236.2M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 7.2% | 13.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.2% | 4.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.45× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $806.8M | $487.8M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $305.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $180.1M | $128.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-96.0M | $-44.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-37.0M | $279.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $868.1M | $-4.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $223.8M | $-128.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $120.7M | $-191.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-157.4M | $-8.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | $236.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $153.6M | $96.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-121.8M | $-69.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-58.5M | $224.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $833.5M | $-48.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $186.5M | $-165.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $85.9M | $-226.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-192.5M | $-55.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | 13.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.2% | 5.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -5.6% | -4.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -2.9% | 14.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 34.2% | -3.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.3% | -12.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.7% | -16.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -8.8% | -3.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.2% | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.2% | 1.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.1% | 3.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.4% | 3.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.7% | 2.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.5% | 2.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.6% | 3.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.45× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.59× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.52× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.13× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.56× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -1.43× | — |
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
IPG
| MDE | $619.0M | 29% |
| IAC | $574.9M | 27% |
| Other | $527.9M | 25% |
| SCE | $413.8M | 19% |
TTWO
Segment breakdown not available.
