vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Leidos (LDOS) and Lululemon Athletica (LULU). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Leidos is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.2B vs $2.6B, roughly 1.6× Lululemon Athletica). Lululemon Athletica runs the higher net margin — 12.0% vs 7.8%, a 4.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Lululemon Athletica posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.1% vs -3.5%). Leidos produced more free cash flow last quarter ($452.0M vs $82.4M). Over the past eight quarters, Leidos's revenue compounded faster (3.1% CAGR vs -10.5%).
Leidos Holdings, Inc. is an American defense, aviation, information technology, and biomedical research company headquartered in Reston, Virginia, that provides scientific, engineering, systems integration, and technical services. Founded as Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Leidos merged with Lockheed Martin's IT sector, Information Systems & Global Solutions, in August 2016 to create the defense industry’s largest IT services provider.
Lululemon, commonly styled as lululemon, is an American-Canadian multinational athletic apparel retailer headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, and incorporated in Delaware, United States, as Lululemon Athletica Inc. It was founded in 1998 as a retailer of yoga pants and other yoga wear, and has expanded to also sell sportswear, lifestyle apparel, accessories and personal care products. The company has 767 stores and also processes sales online through its website.
LDOS vs LULU — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $4.2B | $2.6B |
| Net Profit | $327.0M | $306.8M |
| Gross Margin | 17.4% | 55.6% |
| Operating Margin | 11.3% | 17.0% |
| Net Margin | 7.8% | 12.0% |
| Revenue YoY | -3.5% | 7.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 15.1% | -12.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.54 | $2.59 |
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 | $4.2B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $4.4B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.2B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.2B | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.3B | $3.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.2B | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.1B | $2.2B |
| Q1 26 | $327.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $367.0M | $306.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $391.0M | $370.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $363.0M | $314.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $284.0M | $748.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $351.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $364.0M | $392.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $322.0M | $321.4M |
| Q1 26 | 17.4% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 18.0% | 55.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.0% | 58.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.5% | 58.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.6% | 60.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 58.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 17.8% | 59.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.6% | 57.7% |
| Q1 26 | 11.3% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | 17.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.5% | 20.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.5% | 18.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.7% | 28.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 20.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.4% | 22.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.6% | 19.6% |
| Q1 26 | 7.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 8.2% | 12.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.2% | 14.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.6% | 13.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.5% | 20.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 14.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.7% | 16.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.8% | 14.6% |
| Q1 26 | $2.54 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.82 | $2.59 | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.01 | $3.10 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.77 | $2.60 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.10 | $6.08 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.87 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.68 | $3.15 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.37 | $2.54 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.1B | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $4.6B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $4.9B | $4.5B |
| Total Assets | $13.5B | $8.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.94× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $974.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $930.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $842.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $943.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $823.0M | — |
| Q1 26 | $4.6B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $4.6B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.0B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.0B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.1B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.1B | — |
| Q1 26 | $4.9B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $4.9B | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.7B | $4.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.3B | $4.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.4B | $4.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $4.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.6B | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.5B | $4.2B |
| Q1 26 | $13.5B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $13.5B | $8.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.5B | $7.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.2B | $7.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.1B | $7.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $7.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.3B | $6.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.9B | $6.8B |
| Q1 26 | 0.94× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.94× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.07× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.18× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.92× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.88× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.92× | — |
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 | $495.0M | $249.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $452.0M | $82.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 10.8% | 3.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 1.0% | 6.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.51× | 0.81× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $1.1B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $495.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $249.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $711.0M | $328.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $58.0M | $-119.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $299.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $300.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $656.0M | $443.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $374.0M | $127.5M |
| Q1 26 | $452.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $82.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $680.0M | $150.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $36.0M | $-271.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $213.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $122.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $633.0M | $298.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $351.0M | $-3.2M |
| Q1 26 | 10.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 3.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.1% | 6.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.9% | -11.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.9% | 32.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 5.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.2% | 12.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.5% | -0.1% |
| Q1 26 | 1.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 6.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.7% | 7.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.5% | 6.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.0% | 6.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 7.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.6% | 6.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.6% | 5.9% |
| Q1 26 | 1.51× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.81× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.82× | 0.89× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.16× | -0.38× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.05× | 1.87× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.85× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.80× | 1.13× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.16× | 0.40× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
LDOS
| US Do D And US Intelligence Community | $1.4B | 32% |
| Cost Reimbursement And Fixed Price Incentive Fee | $1.0B | 24% |
| Commercial And International Segment | $609.0M | 15% |
| Defense Systems Segment | $546.0M | 13% |
| Other | $358.0M | 9% |
| Time And Materials And Fixed Price Level Of Effort | $295.0M | 7% |
| Commercial And Non US Customers | $38.0M | 1% |
LULU
| Womens Apparel | $1.6B | 64% |
| Mens Apparel | $596.2M | 23% |
| Accessories And Other Categories | $324.7M | 13% |
