vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Match Group (MTCH) and Tyler Technologies (TYL). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Match Group is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($878.0M vs $613.5M, roughly 1.4× Tyler Technologies). Match Group runs the higher net margin — 23.9% vs 13.2%, a 10.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Tyler Technologies posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.6% vs 2.1%). Match Group produced more free cash flow last quarter ($308.1M vs $2.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Tyler Technologies's revenue compounded faster (6.5% CAGR vs 1.1%).
Match Group, Inc. is an American internet and technology company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It owns and operates the largest global portfolio of popular online dating services including Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, Plenty of Fish, Azar, and other dating global brands. The company was owned by IAC until July 2020 when Match Group was spun off as a separate, public company. As of 2019, the company had 9.3 million subscribers, of which 4.6 million were in North America. Japan ...
Tyler Technologies, Inc. is an American technology company based in Plano, Texas, that provides proprietary software to the U.S. public sector. Tyler Technologies has offices in 17 states and one in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
MTCH vs TYL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $878.0M | $613.5M |
| Net Profit | $209.7M | $81.2M |
| Gross Margin | 74.7% | 48.3% |
| Operating Margin | 32.4% | 16.3% |
| Net Margin | 23.9% | 13.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 2.1% | 8.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | 32.5% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.83 | $1.88 |
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 | — | $613.5M | ||
| Q4 25 | $878.0M | $575.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $914.3M | $595.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $863.7M | $596.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $831.2M | $565.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $860.2M | $541.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $895.5M | $543.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $864.1M | $541.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | $81.2M | ||
| Q4 25 | $209.7M | $65.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $160.8M | $84.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $125.5M | $84.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $117.6M | $81.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $158.3M | $65.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $136.5M | $75.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $133.3M | $67.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | 48.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | 74.7% | 45.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 73.0% | 47.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 72.0% | 45.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 71.5% | 47.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 72.5% | 43.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 71.7% | 43.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 71.6% | 44.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | 16.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | 32.4% | 13.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.2% | 16.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 22.5% | 16.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.8% | 15.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 26.0% | 13.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 23.5% | 15.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.7% | 14.4% |
| Q1 26 | — | 13.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | 23.9% | 11.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.6% | 14.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.5% | 14.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.1% | 14.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 18.4% | 12.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.2% | 14.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.4% | 12.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | $1.88 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.83 | $1.50 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.62 | $1.93 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.49 | $1.93 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.44 | $1.84 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.59 | $1.48 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.51 | $1.74 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.48 | $1.57 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.0B | $346.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $3.5B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $-253.5M | $3.6B |
| Total Assets | $4.5B | $4.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $346.4M | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.0B | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $950.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $340.4M | $892.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $414.2M | $807.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $970.7M | $768.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $860.9M | $544.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $843.6M | $258.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.5B | $599.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $599.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $598.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.4B | $598.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.8B | $597.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.8B | $597.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.8B | $597.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | $3.6B | ||
| Q4 25 | $-253.5M | $3.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-223.9M | $3.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $-230.9M | $3.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $-182.7M | $3.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $-63.7M | $3.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $-88.5M | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $-130.2M | $3.1B |
| Q1 26 | — | $4.8B | ||
| Q4 25 | $4.5B | $5.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.5B | $5.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9B | $5.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.9B | $5.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.5B | $5.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.4B | $5.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.4B | $4.8B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.16× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.17× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.16× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.17× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.18× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.18× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.19× |
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 | $322.8M | $107.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $308.1M | $2.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 35.1% | 0.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 1.7% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.54× | 1.32× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $1.0B | $585.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $107.3M | ||
| Q4 25 | $322.8M | $243.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $320.6M | $255.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $243.8M | $98.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $193.1M | $56.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $254.7M | $224.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $264.9M | $263.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $129.0M | $64.3M |
| Q1 26 | — | $2.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $308.1M | $239.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $306.8M | $251.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $231.0M | $92.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $177.7M | $53.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $247.1M | $221.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $251.8M | $260.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $116.3M | $57.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | 35.1% | 41.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 33.6% | 42.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 26.7% | 15.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 21.4% | 9.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 28.7% | 40.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 28.1% | 48.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.5% | 10.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.7% | 0.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.5% | 0.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.5% | 0.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.9% | 0.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.9% | 0.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.5% | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.5% | 1.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | 1.32× | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.54× | 3.72× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.99× | 3.02× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.94× | 1.16× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.64× | 0.69× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.61× | 3.45× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.94× | 3.47× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.97× | 0.95× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
MTCH
| Tinder Segment | $479.3M | 55% |
| Hinge Segment | $186.5M | 21% |
| Evergreen And Emerging Segment | $148.1M | 17% |
| MG Asia Segment | $65.8M | 7% |
TYL
| Subscriptions | $429.7M | 70% |
| Maintenance | $108.9M | 18% |
| Other | $74.9M | 12% |
