vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BRADY CORP (BRC) and CARLISLE COMPANIES INC (CSL), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CARLISLE COMPANIES INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $405.3M, roughly 2.8× BRADY CORP). BRADY CORP runs the higher net margin — 13.3% vs 11.3%, a 2.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, BRADY CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.5% vs 0.4%). CARLISLE COMPANIES INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($346.1M vs $22.4M). Over the past eight quarters, BRADY CORP's revenue compounded faster (12.1% CAGR vs 1.4%).
Brady Corporation is an American developer and manufacturer of specialty products, technical equipment, and services for identifying components used in workplaces. Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Brady employs 6,600 people in North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia and serves customers and markets globally. Brady Corporation was founded as W.H. Brady Co. in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, in 1914, by William Henry Brady (1879–1953). In 1984, the company went public and began tradi...
Carlisle Companies Incorporated is a supplier of construction products that make buildings more energy efficient and resilient. The company manufactures and sells single-ply roofing products as well as warranted systems and accessories for the commercial building industry. The company is organized into two segments, including Carlisle Construction Materials and Carlisle Weatherproofing Technologies. The company's product portfolio includes moisture protection products, protective roofing unde...
BRC vs CSL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $405.3M | $1.1B |
| Net Profit | $53.9M | $127.4M |
| Gross Margin | 51.5% | 33.8% |
| Operating Margin | 16.8% | 16.8% |
| Net Margin | 13.3% | 11.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.5% | 0.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | 15.3% | -21.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $3.06 |
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.
| Q4 25 | $405.3M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $397.3M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $382.6M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $356.7M | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $377.1M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $343.4M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $343.4M | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $322.6M | $1.1B |
| Q4 25 | $53.9M | $127.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.9M | $214.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $52.3M | $255.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $40.3M | $143.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $46.8M | $162.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $55.5M | $244.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $50.9M | $712.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $43.6M | $192.3M |
| Q4 25 | 51.5% | 33.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 50.4% | 36.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 51.0% | 37.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 49.3% | 35.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 50.3% | 36.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 51.6% | 38.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 51.6% | 39.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 50.2% | 36.4% |
| Q4 25 | 16.8% | 16.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.9% | 21.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.6% | 23.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.4% | 16.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 15.6% | 19.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.3% | 23.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 18.5% | 26.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.7% | 20.5% |
| Q4 25 | 13.3% | 11.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.6% | 15.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.7% | 17.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.3% | 13.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.4% | 14.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.1% | 18.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.8% | 49.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 13.5% | 17.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.06 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $4.98 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $5.88 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.20 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.76 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $5.25 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $14.84 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.97 |
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 | $182.7M | $1.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $115.9M | $2.9B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.2B | $1.8B |
| Total Assets | $1.8B | $6.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.09× | 1.61× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $182.7M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $174.3M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $152.2M | $68.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $138.5M | $220.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $145.7M | $753.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $250.1M | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $160.5M | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $143.9M | $552.6M |
| Q4 25 | $115.9M | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $99.8M | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $90.9M | $2.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.3B |
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $2.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $3.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | $2.9B |
| Q4 25 | $1.8B | $6.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.7B | $6.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | $5.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6B | $5.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $5.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $6.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $6.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | $6.6B |
| Q4 25 | 0.09× | 1.61× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.08× | 1.45× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.89× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.87× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.77× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.09× | 0.83× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.76× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.80× |
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 | $33.4M | $386.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $22.4M | $346.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 5.5% | 30.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.7% | 3.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.62× | 3.03× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $159.9M | $970.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $33.4M | $386.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $58.3M | $426.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $59.9M | $287.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $39.6M | $1.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $23.4M | $370.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $84.0M | $312.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $72.7M | $183.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $36.1M | $163.5M |
| Q4 25 | $22.4M | $346.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.4M | $393.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $55.6M | $258.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $32.5M | $-27.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $16.1M | $334.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $73.2M | $293.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $64.4M | $158.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-13.5M | $131.0M |
| Q4 25 | 5.5% | 30.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.4% | 29.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.5% | 17.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.1% | -2.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.3% | 29.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 21.3% | 22.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 18.8% | 10.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -4.2% | 11.9% |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | 3.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.2% | 2.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.1% | 2.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.0% | 2.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.9% | 3.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.1% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.4% | 1.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 15.4% | 3.0% |
| Q4 25 | 0.62× | 3.03× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.17× | 1.99× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.15× | 1.12× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.98× | 0.01× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.50× | 2.28× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.51× | 1.28× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.43× | 0.26× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.83× | 0.85× |
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.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BRC
| Americas Asia | $215.1M | 53% |
| Europe Australia | $119.9M | 30% |
| Other | $70.2M | 17% |
CSL
| Non Residential Construction | $762.0M | 68% |
| Carlisle Weatherproofing Technologies | $300.9M | 27% |
| Other | $64.8M | 6% |
