vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Grab Holdings Ltd (GRABW) and LANDSTAR SYSTEM INC (LSTR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Grab Holdings Ltd is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.5B vs $1.2B, roughly 1.3× LANDSTAR SYSTEM INC). LANDSTAR SYSTEM INC runs the higher net margin — 1.8% vs 2.0%, a 0.3% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Grab Holdings Inc. is a Singaporean multinational technology company headquartered in one-north, Singapore. It is the developer of a super-app for ride-hailing, food delivery, and digital payment services on mobile devices. It operates in Singapore, Malaysia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Landstar System, Inc. is an American transportation services company specializing in logistics and, more specifically, third-party logistics. Landstar utilizes an extensive network of over 8,800 independent owner-operators, referred to internally as business capacity owners (BCOs), over 1,000 independent freight agents, and over 70,000 vetted carriers. Landstar provides services principally throughout the United States and to a lesser extent in Canada and between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, ...
GRABW vs LSTR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2024 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.5B | $1.2B |
| Net Profit | $26.0M | $23.9M |
| Gross Margin | 43.1% | — |
| Operating Margin | -2.5% | 2.5% |
| Net Margin | 1.8% | 2.0% |
| Revenue YoY | — | -2.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -48.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.01 | $0.70 |
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 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.5B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | — | $23.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $19.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $41.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $29.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $26.0M | $46.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $50.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $52.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $47.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 43.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 4.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | -2.5% | 4.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 5.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 5.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 5.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.8% | 3.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 4.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 4.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 4.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.70 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.56 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.20 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.85 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.01 | $1.30 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.41 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.48 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.32 |
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 | $3.0B | $452.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $0 |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $6.4B | $795.7M |
| Total Assets | $9.3B | $1.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.00× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $452.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $434.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $426.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $473.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $566.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $531.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $504.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $530.5M |
| Q4 25 | — | $0 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0 |
| Q4 25 | — | $795.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $888.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $921.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $930.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.4B | $972.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.0B |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.3B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.7B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.00× |
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 | $591.0M | $72.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $70.5M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 6.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 0.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 22.73× | 3.04× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $215.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $72.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $89.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $7.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $55.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $591.0M | $61.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $83.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $48.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $94.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $70.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $86.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $4.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $53.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $54.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $75.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $40.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $84.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | 6.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 7.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 4.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 4.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 6.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 3.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 7.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.04× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 4.61× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.17× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.87× | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.73× | 1.32× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.66× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.91× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.00× |
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
GRABW
Segment breakdown not available.
LSTR
| Transportation Logistics | $1.2B | 99% |
| Insurance | $14.6M | 1% |
