vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Lululemon Athletica (LULU) and Rivian Automotive, Inc. (RIVN). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Lululemon Athletica is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.6B vs $1.3B, roughly 2.0× Rivian Automotive, Inc.). Lululemon Athletica runs the higher net margin — 12.0% vs -63.1%, a 75.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Lululemon Athletica posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.1% vs -25.8%). Lululemon Athletica produced more free cash flow last quarter ($82.4M vs $-1.1B). Over the past eight quarters, Rivian Automotive, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (3.3% CAGR vs -10.5%).
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.
Rivian Automotive, Inc., is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and automotive technology company founded in 2009. It produces an electric sport utility vehicle (SUV), a pickup truck on a "skateboard" platform that can support future vehicles or be adopted by other companies, and an electric delivery van, the Rivian EDV. It started deliveries of its R1T pickup truck in late 2021. The company planned to build an exclusive charging network in the United States and Canada by the end of 2023.
LULU vs RIVN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.6B | $1.3B |
| Net Profit | $306.8M | $-811.0M |
| Gross Margin | 55.6% | 9.3% |
| Operating Margin | 17.0% | -64.8% |
| Net Margin | 12.0% | -63.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.1% | -25.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -12.8% | -9.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.59 | $-0.66 |
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.
| Q4 25 | $2.6B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.4B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.6B | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4B | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.4B | $874.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.2B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.2B | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $306.8M | $-811.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $370.9M | $-1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $314.6M | $-1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $748.4M | $-545.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $351.9M | $-744.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $392.9M | $-1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $321.4M | $-1.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $669.5M | $-1.4B |
| Q4 25 | 55.6% | 9.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 58.5% | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 58.3% | -15.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 60.4% | 16.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 58.5% | 9.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 59.6% | -44.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 57.7% | -38.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 59.4% | -43.8% |
| Q4 25 | 17.0% | -64.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.7% | -63.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.5% | -85.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 28.9% | -52.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 20.5% | -38.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.8% | -133.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.6% | -118.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 28.5% | -123.3% |
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | -63.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.7% | -75.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.3% | -85.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.7% | -44.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.7% | -42.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.6% | -125.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.6% | -125.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 20.9% | -120.1% |
| Q4 25 | $2.59 | $-0.66 | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.10 | $-0.96 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.60 | $-0.97 | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.08 | $-0.48 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.87 | $-0.67 | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.15 | $-1.08 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.54 | $-1.46 | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.28 | $-1.48 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $6.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $4.5B | $4.6B |
| Total Assets | $8.0B | $14.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $6.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $7.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $7.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $7.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $7.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $6.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $7.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $7.9B |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $5.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $4.4B |
| Q4 25 | $4.5B | $4.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.4B | $5.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.3B | $6.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.3B | $6.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.0B | $6.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.0B | $5.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $6.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.2B | $8.1B |
| Q4 25 | $8.0B | $14.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.5B | $15.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.4B | $15.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.6B | $15.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.1B | $15.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.7B | $14.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.8B | $15.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.1B | $15.7B |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.81× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.55× |
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 | $249.9M | $-681.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $82.4M | $-1.1B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 3.2% | -89.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 6.5% | 36.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.81× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $1.1B | $-2.5B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $249.9M | $-681.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $328.7M | $26.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-119.0M | $64.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | $-188.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $300.7M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $443.1M | $-876.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $127.5M | $-754.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | $-1.3B |
| Q4 25 | $82.4M | $-1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $150.8M | $-421.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-271.2M | $-398.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $-526.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $122.2M | $856.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $298.1M | $-1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $-3.2M | $-1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.2B | $-1.5B |
| Q4 25 | 3.2% | -89.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.0% | -27.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -11.4% | -30.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 32.3% | -42.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.1% | 49.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.6% | -131.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.1% | -89.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 36.7% | -126.5% |
| Q4 25 | 6.5% | 36.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.0% | 28.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.4% | 35.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.5% | 27.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.4% | 18.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.1% | 31.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.9% | 24.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.4% | 21.1% |
| Q4 25 | 0.81× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.89× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.38× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.87× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.85× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.13× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.40× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.07× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
LULU
| Womens Apparel | $1.6B | 64% |
| Mens Apparel | $596.2M | 23% |
| Accessories And Other Categories | $324.7M | 13% |
RIVN
| Automotive Segment | $839.0M | 65% |
| Software And Services Segment | $447.0M | 35% |
| Regulatory Credits | $30.0M | 2% |
