vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of HERBALIFE LTD. (HLF) and Simply Good Foods Co (SMPL), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
HERBALIFE LTD. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.3B vs $340.2M, roughly 3.8× Simply Good Foods Co). Simply Good Foods Co runs the higher net margin — 6.7% vs 7.4%, a 0.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, HERBALIFE LTD. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (6.3% vs -0.3%). HERBALIFE LTD. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($79.8M vs $48.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Simply Good Foods Co's revenue compounded faster (5.0% CAGR vs 0.7%).
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd., also called Herbalife International, Inc. or simply Herbalife, is an American multinational multi-level marketing (MLM) corporation that develops and sells dietary supplements. The company has been alleged to have fraudulently operated a pyramid scheme; under an SEC agreement in 2016 the compensation and other benefits were restructured to include tying distributor rewards to verifiable sales. Some products sold by Herbalife have caused acute hepatitis. The business...
Whole Foods Market, Inc. is an American multinational supermarket chain headquartered in Austin, Texas, owned wholly by Amazon, and which generally sells whole food products free from hydrogenated fats and artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives. A USDA Certified Organic grocer in the United States, the chain is popularly known for its organic selections.
HLF vs SMPL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.3B | $340.2M |
| Net Profit | $85.4M | $25.3M |
| Gross Margin | 77.5% | 32.3% |
| Operating Margin | 7.8% | 11.0% |
| Net Margin | 6.7% | 7.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.3% | -0.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | -52.0% | -33.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.81 | $0.26 |
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 | $1.3B | $340.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $381.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $341.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $375.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3B | $334.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.3B | $312.2M |
| Q4 25 | $85.4M | $25.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $43.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $49.3M | $41.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $50.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $177.9M | $38.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $47.4M | $29.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.7M | $41.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $24.3M | $33.1M |
| Q4 25 | 77.5% | 32.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 77.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 78.0% | 36.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 78.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 77.8% | 38.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 78.3% | 38.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 77.9% | 39.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 77.5% | 37.4% |
| Q4 25 | 7.8% | 11.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.5% | 15.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.8% | 16.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.2% | 12.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.3% | 17.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.7% | 15.4% |
| Q4 25 | 6.7% | 7.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.9% | 10.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.7% | 11.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.8% | 7.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.4% | 12.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.9% | 10.6% |
| Q4 25 | $0.81 | $0.26 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.42 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.48 | $0.40 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.49 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.75 | $0.38 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.46 | $0.29 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.05 | $0.41 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.24 | $0.33 |
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 | $353.1M | $194.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.0B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $-515.1M | $1.7B |
| Total Assets | $2.8B | $2.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $353.1M | $194.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $305.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $320.9M | $98.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $329.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $415.3M | $121.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $402.5M | $132.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $374.0M | $208.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $398.3M | $135.9M |
| Q4 25 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.2B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.3B | $397.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.3B | $237.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.4B | $237.7M |
| Q4 25 | $-515.1M | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-612.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-660.5M | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $-736.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-801.1M | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $-954.2M | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.0B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.0B | $1.6B |
| Q4 25 | $2.8B | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.7B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7B | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.7B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.7B | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.7B | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.6B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.6B | $2.1B |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.23× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.14× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.14× |
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 | $98.3M | $50.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $79.8M | $48.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 6.2% | 14.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.4% | 0.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.15× | 1.98× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $252.9M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $98.3M | $50.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $138.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $96.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $200.0K | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $69.6M | $32.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $99.5M | $48.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $102.5M | $72.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $13.8M | $46.5M |
| Q4 25 | $79.8M | $48.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $118.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $73.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-18.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $43.9M | $31.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $72.4M | $45.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $66.2M | $72.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-19.1M | $46.1M |
| Q4 25 | 6.2% | 14.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.6% | 9.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.8% | 12.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.2% | 21.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | -1.5% | 14.8% |
| Q4 25 | 1.4% | 0.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.1% | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.2% | 1.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.8% | 0.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | 0.1% |
| Q4 25 | 1.15× | 1.98× | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.21× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.95× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.00× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.39× | 0.84× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.10× | 1.67× | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.81× | 1.76× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.57× | 1.40× |
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
HLF
| Others | $514.4M | 40% |
| Other | $300.0M | 23% |
| IN | $250.3M | 20% |
| MX | $147.2M | 11% |
| VN | $71.1M | 6% |
SMPL
| Quest | $211.4M | 62% |
| Atkins Domain | $79.7M | 23% |
| OWYN | $28.1M | 8% |
| Other | $20.9M | 6% |
