vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Airbnb (ABNB) and Lululemon Athletica (LULU), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Airbnb is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.8B vs $2.6B, roughly 1.1× Lululemon Athletica). Airbnb runs the higher net margin — 12.3% vs 12.0%, a 0.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Airbnb posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (12.0% vs 7.1%). Over the past eight quarters, Airbnb's revenue compounded faster (13.9% CAGR vs -10.5%).
Airbnb, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates a platform that enables hosts to offer stays and experiences to guests worldwide. The company's marketplace model connects hosts and guests online or through mobile devices to book spaces and experiences. It primarily offers private rooms, primary homes, or vacation homes. The company was formerly known as AirBed & Breakfast, Inc. and changed its name to Airbnb, Inc. in November 2010. Airbnb, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered ...
Lululemon, commonly styled as lululemon, is an American-Canadian multinational athletic apparel retailer headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, and incorporated in Delaware, United States, as Lululemon Athletica Inc. It was founded in 1998 as a retailer of yoga pants and other yoga wear, and has expanded to also sell sportswear, lifestyle apparel, accessories and personal care products. The company has 767 stores and also processes sales online through its website.
ABNB vs LULU — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.8B | $2.6B |
| Net Profit | $341.0M | $306.8M |
| Gross Margin | 82.5% | 55.6% |
| Operating Margin | 9.7% | 17.0% |
| Net Margin | 12.3% | 12.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 12.0% | 7.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -26.0% | -12.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $2.59 |
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 | $2.8B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.1B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.1B | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.3B | $3.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.5B | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.7B | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.7B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | $3.2B |
| Q4 25 | $341.0M | $306.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $370.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $642.0M | $314.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $154.0M | $748.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $461.0M | $351.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.4B | $392.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $555.0M | $321.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $264.0M | $669.5M |
| Q4 25 | 82.5% | 55.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 86.6% | 58.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 82.4% | 58.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 77.7% | 60.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 82.8% | 58.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 87.5% | 59.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 81.6% | 57.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 77.6% | 59.4% |
| Q4 25 | 9.7% | 17.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 39.7% | 20.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.8% | 18.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.7% | 28.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.3% | 20.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 40.9% | 22.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 18.1% | 19.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.7% | 28.5% |
| Q4 25 | 12.3% | 12.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 33.6% | 14.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.7% | 13.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.8% | 20.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 18.6% | 14.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 36.7% | 16.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.2% | 14.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 12.3% | 20.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.59 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.10 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.60 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $6.08 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.87 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.15 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.54 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $5.28 |
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 | $11.0B | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $8.2B | $4.5B |
| Total Assets | $22.2B | $8.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $11.0B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.7B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.4B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.6B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.3B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.3B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.1B | — |
| Q4 25 | $8.2B | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.6B | $4.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.8B | $4.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.9B | $4.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.4B | $4.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.5B | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.0B | $4.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.9B | $4.2B |
| Q4 25 | $22.2B | $8.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $23.1B | $7.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $27.0B | $7.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.1B | $7.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $21.0B | $7.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $22.2B | $6.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $26.3B | $6.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $24.5B | $7.1B |
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 | $526.0M | $249.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $82.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 3.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 6.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.54× | 0.81× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $1.1B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $526.0M | $249.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $328.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $975.0M | $-119.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $466.0M | $300.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $443.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $127.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.9B | $1.4B |
| Q4 25 | — | $82.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $150.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-271.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $122.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $298.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-3.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 6.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -11.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 32.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 5.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 12.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -0.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 36.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | 6.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 7.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 6.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 6.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 7.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 6.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 5.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 6.4% |
| Q4 25 | 1.54× | 0.81× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.99× | 0.89× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.52× | -0.38× | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.62× | 1.87× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.01× | 0.85× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.79× | 1.13× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.89× | 0.40× | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.28× | 2.07× |
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
ABNB
| North America | $1.1B | 41% |
| EMEA | $930.0M | 33% |
| Latin America | $351.0M | 13% |
| Other | $351.0M | 13% |
LULU
| Womens Apparel | $1.6B | 64% |
| Mens Apparel | $596.2M | 23% |
| Accessories And Other Categories | $324.7M | 13% |
