vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP) and Warby Parker Inc. (WRBY). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
ProPetro Holding Corp. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($289.7M vs $212.0M, roughly 1.4× Warby Parker Inc.). On growth, Warby Parker Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.2% vs -9.6%). ProPetro Holding Corp. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($16.8M vs $8.1M). Over the past eight quarters, Warby Parker Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (2.9% CAGR vs -15.5%).
ProPetro Holding Corp. is a leading U.S.-based oilfield services provider. It offers hydraulic fracturing, well completion and related supporting services primarily to onshore oil and gas exploration and production operators, with core operations concentrated in the Permian Basin spanning Texas and New Mexico.
Warby Parker Inc. is an American eyewear brand and retailer of prescription glasses, contact lenses, and sunglasses, based in New York City. It also offers eye exams. Originally founded in 2010 as an online-only retailer, the company now generates about two-thirds of its revenue from its 276 physical retail stores, 271 of which are in the U.S. and 5 of which are in Canada. The company intends to operate 900 stores. The company has 2.28 million customers; average order value is $263.
PUMP vs WRBY — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $289.7M | $212.0M |
| Net Profit | — | $-6.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | 52.4% |
| Operating Margin | 2.1% | -3.2% |
| Net Margin | — | -2.8% |
| Revenue YoY | -9.6% | 11.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 13.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.01 | $-0.06 |
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 | $289.7M | $212.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $293.9M | $221.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $326.2M | $214.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $359.4M | $223.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $320.6M | $190.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $360.9M | $192.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $357.0M | $188.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $405.8M | $200.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-6.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.4M | $5.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.2M | $-1.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.6M | $3.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-6.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-137.1M | $-4.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-3.7M | $-6.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $19.9M | $-2.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | 52.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 54.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 53.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 56.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 54.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 54.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 56.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 56.7% |
| Q4 25 | 2.1% | -3.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.1% | 1.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1.0% | -2.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.6% | 1.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | -5.8% | -4.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | -49.4% | -3.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.1% | -4.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.5% | -2.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | -2.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | -0.8% | 2.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.2% | -0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.7% | 1.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -3.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | -38.0% | -2.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.0% | -3.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.9% | -1.3% |
| Q4 25 | $0.01 | $-0.06 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.02 | $0.05 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.07 | $-0.01 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.09 | $0.03 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.14 | $-0.06 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.32 | $-0.03 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.03 | $-0.06 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.18 | $-0.02 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $91.3M | $286.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $829.8M | $367.7M |
| Total Assets | $1.3B | $720.9M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $91.3M | $286.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $76.7M | $280.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $83.0M | $286.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $71.4M | $265.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.3M | $254.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $54.0M | $251.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $74.7M | $238.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $53.6M | $220.4M |
| Q4 25 | $829.8M | $367.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $826.2M | $369.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $824.0M | $361.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $826.5M | $354.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $816.3M | $340.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $833.0M | $336.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $975.8M | $329.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $998.2M | $316.2M |
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $720.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $706.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $701.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $682.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $676.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $638.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5B | $618.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.2B | $592.9M |
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 | $81.0M | $23.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $16.8M | $8.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 5.8% | 3.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 22.2% | 7.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $45.3M | $43.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $81.0M | $23.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $41.7M | $18.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $54.2M | $40.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $54.7M | $29.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $37.9M | $19.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $34.7M | $27.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $104.9M | $31.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $74.8M | $19.9M |
| Q4 25 | $16.8M | $8.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.4M | $-1.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.1M | $23.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.8M | $13.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.0M | $2.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-6.0M | $13.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $67.7M | $14.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $40.2M | $5.5M |
| Q4 25 | 5.8% | 3.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | -0.8% | -0.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.2% | 11.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.8% | 5.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.1% | 1.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.7% | 6.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.0% | 7.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.9% | 2.7% |
| Q4 25 | 22.2% | 7.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.0% | 8.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.4% | 7.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.4% | 7.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.7% | 9.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.3% | 7.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.4% | 9.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.5% | 7.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.06× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.70× | 8.46× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.75× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
PUMP
| Hydraulic Fracturing Segment | $203.9M | 70% |
| Wireline Operating Segment | $55.4M | 19% |
| Cementing Operating Segment | $29.6M | 10% |
WRBY
| Retail | $155.2M | 73% |
| E Commerce | $56.8M | 27% |
