vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of LAMAR ADVERTISING CO (LAMR) and Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp (ZWS). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
LAMAR ADVERTISING CO is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($528.0M vs $407.2M, roughly 1.3× Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp). LAMAR ADVERTISING CO runs the higher net margin — 19.3% vs 10.3%, a 8.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.8% vs 4.5%). Over the past eight quarters, Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp's revenue compounded faster (4.4% CAGR vs -3.4%).
Lamar Advertising Company is an advertising company which operates billboards, logo signs, and transit displays in the United States and Canada. The company was founded in 1902 by Charles W. Lamar and J.M. Coe, and is headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The company has over 200 locations in the United States and Canada. They have reportedly more than 363,000 displays across the USA. Lamar Advertising Company became a real estate investment trust in 2014.
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp designs, manufactures, and distributes a wide range of water management and dispensing products, including commercial plumbing fixtures, drinking fountains, water filtration systems, and flow control components. It serves commercial, residential, industrial, and public infrastructure markets primarily across North America, with a focus on delivering sustainable, water-efficient solutions for diverse end-user needs.
LAMR vs ZWS — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $528.0M | $407.2M |
| Net Profit | $101.8M | $42.1M |
| Gross Margin | — | 44.4% |
| Operating Margin | 27.7% | 14.8% |
| Net Margin | 19.3% | 10.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 4.5% | 9.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -26.9% | 15.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.00 | $0.24 |
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 | $528.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $595.9M | $407.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $585.5M | $455.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $579.3M | $444.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $505.4M | $388.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $579.6M | $370.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $564.1M | $410.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $565.3M | $412.0M |
| Q1 26 | $101.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $152.3M | $42.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $141.8M | $61.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $154.4M | $50.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $138.8M | $43.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.2M | $36.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $147.5M | $43.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $137.4M | $46.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 67.7% | 44.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 67.9% | 44.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 67.8% | 45.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 64.4% | 46.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 67.8% | 43.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 67.6% | 46.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 67.6% | 45.2% |
| Q1 26 | 27.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 32.9% | 14.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 32.3% | 17.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 34.1% | 17.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 37.8% | 16.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.3% | 13.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 33.1% | 17.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 32.6% | 17.5% |
| Q1 26 | 19.3% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 25.6% | 10.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.2% | 13.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 26.6% | 11.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 27.5% | 11.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -0.2% | 9.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.1% | 10.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 24.3% | 11.2% |
| Q1 26 | $1.00 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.50 | $0.24 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.40 | $0.36 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.52 | $0.29 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.35 | $0.26 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.02 | $0.21 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.44 | $0.25 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.34 | $0.27 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $39.3M | $300.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $496.5M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $981.7M | $1.6B |
| Total Assets | $6.9B | $2.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.31× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $39.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $64.8M | $300.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.0M | $260.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $55.7M | $201.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $36.1M | $144.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $49.5M | $198.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $29.5M | $187.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $77.9M | $162.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $496.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $496.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $495.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $495.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $495.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $495.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $495.5M |
| Q1 26 | $981.7M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.0B | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.0B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $906.9M | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $1.6B |
| Q1 26 | $6.9B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $6.9B | $2.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.8B | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.7B | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.5B | $2.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.6B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.5B | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.6B | $2.7B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.31× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.31× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.32× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.32× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.31× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.31× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.31× |
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 | — | $91.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $152.3M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 28.9% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 6.3% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 2.18× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $737.7M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $271.2M | $91.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $235.7M | $101.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $229.5M | $110.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $127.7M | $42.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $279.3M | $63.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $227.4M | $90.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $256.3M | $85.1M |
| Q1 26 | $152.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $208.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $185.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $191.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $97.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $236.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $197.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $233.7M | — |
| Q1 26 | 28.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 35.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 31.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 40.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 35.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 41.3% | — |
| Q1 26 | 6.3% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 10.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.0% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.78× | 2.18× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.66× | 1.64× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.49× | 2.19× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.92× | 0.98× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.75× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.54× | 2.09× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.87× | 1.85× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
