vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Abbott Laboratories (ABT) and DaVita (DVA), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Abbott Laboratories is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($11.5B vs $3.6B, roughly 3.2× DaVita). Abbott Laboratories runs the higher net margin — 15.5% vs 6.5%, a 9.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, DaVita posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (12.3% vs 4.4%). Over the past eight quarters, Abbott Laboratories's revenue compounded faster (7.2% CAGR vs 6.6%).
Abbott Laboratories, commonly known as Abbott, is an American multinational medical devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois. The company produces pharmaceuticals for sale outside the United States, diagnostic products, nutritional products, and medical devices.
DaVita Inc. is an American company that provides kidney dialysis services through a network of 2,675 outpatient centers in the United States, serving 200,800 patients, and 367 outpatient centers in 11 other countries serving 49,400 patients. The company primarily treats end-stage renal disease (ESRD), which requires patients to undergo kidney dialysis, often 3 times per week for the rest of their lives unless they receive a kidney transplant via organ donation.
ABT vs DVA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $11.5B | $3.6B |
| Net Profit | $1.8B | $234.2M |
| Gross Margin | 57.0% | — |
| Operating Margin | 19.6% | 15.5% |
| Net Margin | 15.5% | 6.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 4.4% | 12.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | -80.8% | 43.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.01 | $3.22 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q1 26 | — | $3.6B | ||
| Q4 25 | $11.5B | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.4B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.1B | $3.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.4B | $3.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.0B | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.6B | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.4B | $3.2B |
| Q1 26 | — | $234.2M | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.8B | $234.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | $150.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $199.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $162.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.2B | $259.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.6B | $214.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3B | $222.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 57.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 55.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 56.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 56.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 55.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 55.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 55.6% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | 15.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | 19.6% | 15.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.1% | 14.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.4% | 15.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.3% | 13.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.4% | 17.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 17.5% | 16.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.1% | 15.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | 6.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | 15.5% | 6.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.5% | 4.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 16.0% | 5.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.8% | 5.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 84.1% | 7.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.5% | 6.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.5% | 7.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | $3.22 | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.01 | $3.22 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.94 | $2.04 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.01 | $2.58 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.76 | $2.00 | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.26 | $3.08 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.94 | $2.50 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.74 | $2.50 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $8.9B | $700.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $12.9B | $10.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $52.1B | $-651.1M |
| Total Assets | $86.7B | $17.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.25× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $700.7M | ||
| Q4 25 | $8.9B | $700.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.7B | $736.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.3B | $739.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.8B | $511.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.0B | $846.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.8B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.2B | $437.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | $10.2B | ||
| Q4 25 | $12.9B | $10.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $10.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $10.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $9.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $14.1B | $9.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $9.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $8.5B |
| Q1 26 | — | $-651.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | $52.1B | $-651.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $51.0B | $-571.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $50.6B | $-369.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $48.8B | $-267.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $47.7B | $121.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $39.8B | $386.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $39.3B | $632.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | $17.5B | ||
| Q4 25 | $86.7B | $17.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $84.2B | $17.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $84.0B | $17.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $81.4B | $17.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $81.4B | $17.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $74.4B | $17.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $73.0B | $17.0B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.25× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.30× | 75.76× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 23.95× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 13.35× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $3.3B | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $2.6B | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 22.9% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 6.0% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.87× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $7.4B | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.3B | $540.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.8B | $841.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.0B | $324.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | $180.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.9B | $547.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.7B | $810.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0B | $798.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.6B | $395.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.3B | $675.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $203.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $933.0M | $36.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.1B | $377.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | $671.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $674.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 22.9% | 10.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.2% | 19.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.9% | 6.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.0% | 1.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 19.6% | 11.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.2% | 20.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.8% | 21.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 6.0% | 4.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.4% | 4.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.5% | 3.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.7% | 4.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.6% | 5.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.2% | 4.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.1% | 3.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.87× | 2.31× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.70× | 5.60× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.15× | 1.63× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.07× | 1.10× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.31× | 2.11× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.64× | 3.77× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.51× | 3.59× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
