vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and MARZETTI CO (MZTI), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Archer Daniels Midland is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($6.1B vs $518.0M, roughly 11.7× MARZETTI CO). MARZETTI CO runs the higher net margin — 7.5% vs 11.4%, a 3.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Archer Daniels Midland posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (123.5% vs 1.7%). MARZETTI CO produced more free cash flow last quarter ($70.9M vs $-669.0M). Over the past eight quarters, MARZETTI CO's revenue compounded faster (4.8% CAGR vs -47.4%).
The Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, commonly known as ADM, is an American multinational food processing and commodities trading corporation founded in 1902 and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. The company operates more than 270 plants and 420 crop procurement facilities worldwide, where cereal grains and oilseeds are processed into products used in food, beverage, nutraceutical, industrial, and animal feed markets worldwide.
The T. Marzetti Company is the Specialty Food Group of the Lancaster Colony Corporation. T. Marzetti produces numerous salad dressings, fruit and vegetable dips, frozen baked goods, and specialty brand items. It is one of the largest food and beverage companies based in Central Ohio. Headquartered in Westerville, Ohio, the T. Marzetti Company was founded by Teresa Marzetti.
ADM vs MZTI — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q2 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $6.1B | $518.0M |
| Net Profit | $456.0M | $59.1M |
| Gross Margin | 20.0% | 26.5% |
| Operating Margin | 7.9% | 14.5% |
| Net Margin | 7.5% | 11.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 123.5% | 1.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -19.6% | 20.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.95 | $2.15 |
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 | $6.1B | $518.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.4B | $493.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.3B | $475.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.1B | $457.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-25.7B | $509.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.0B | $466.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $22.2B | $452.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $21.8B | $471.4M |
| Q4 25 | $456.0M | $59.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $108.0M | $47.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $219.0M | $32.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $295.0M | $41.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $567.0M | $49.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.0M | $44.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $486.0M | $34.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $729.0M | $28.4M |
| Q4 25 | 20.0% | 26.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.8% | 24.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 21.6% | 22.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.2% | 23.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 26.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.8% | 23.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.3% | 21.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.6% | 22.2% |
| Q4 25 | 7.9% | 14.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.3% | 12.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.4% | 8.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.7% | 10.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 14.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.8% | 12.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.7% | 9.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.1% | 7.5% |
| Q4 25 | 7.5% | 11.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.7% | 9.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.5% | 6.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.8% | 9.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | -2.2% | 9.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.3% | 9.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.2% | 7.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.3% | 6.0% |
| Q4 25 | $0.95 | $2.15 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.22 | $1.71 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.45 | $1.18 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.61 | $1.49 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.21 | $1.78 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.04 | $1.62 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.98 | $1.27 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.42 | $1.03 |
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 | $1.0B | $201.6M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $7.6B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $22.7B | $1.0B |
| Total Assets | $52.4B | $1.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.33× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.0B | $201.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $182.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $161.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $864.0M | $124.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $611.0M | $203.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $784.0M | $135.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $764.0M | $163.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $830.0M | $164.8M |
| Q4 25 | $7.6B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.6B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $22.7B | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.5B | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.4B | $998.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $22.1B | $996.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $22.2B | $979.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $22.0B | $945.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $22.2B | $925.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $23.2B | $912.9M |
| Q4 25 | $52.4B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $51.9B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $52.0B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $53.4B | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $53.3B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $52.2B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $52.7B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $54.8B | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | 0.33× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.37× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.35× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $-313.0M | $88.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-669.0M | $70.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -11.1% | 13.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 5.9% | 3.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | -0.69× | 1.50× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $4.2B | $229.5M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-313.0M | $88.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.8B | $69.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.3B | $88.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-342.0M | $45.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $322.0M | $107.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $19.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $468.0M | $34.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $700.0M | $75.9M |
| Q4 25 | $-669.0M | $70.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | $53.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.0B | $73.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-633.0M | $30.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-170.0M | $96.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $919.0M | $2.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $106.0M | $18.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $372.0M | $61.1M |
| Q4 25 | -11.1% | 13.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 23.6% | 10.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 63.0% | 15.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -10.3% | 6.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.7% | 19.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.3% | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.5% | 4.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.7% | 13.0% |
| Q4 25 | 5.9% | 3.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.6% | 3.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.8% | 3.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.7% | 3.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -1.9% | 2.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.4% | 3.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.6% | 3.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | 3.2% |
| Q4 25 | -0.69× | 1.50× | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.75× | 1.47× | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.63× | 2.71× | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.16× | 1.11× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.57× | 2.20× | ||
| Q3 24 | 72.22× | 0.45× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.96× | 0.98× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.96× | 2.68× |
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
ADM
| Starchesandsweeteners | $1.4B | 23% |
| Ag Services | $1.1B | 18% |
| Human Nutrition | $961.0M | 16% |
| Refined Productsand Other | $924.0M | 15% |
| Animal Nutrition | $825.0M | 14% |
| Vantage Corn Processors | $700.0M | 12% |
| Transferred Over Time | $176.0M | 3% |
| Crushing | $59.0M | 1% |
MZTI
| National Accounts | $177.4M | 34% |
| Dressings And Sauces | $169.5M | 33% |
| Frozen Breads And Other | $62.7M | 12% |
| Branded And Other | $54.8M | 11% |
| Refrigerated Dressings Dips And Other | $46.2M | 9% |
| Other Dressings And Sauces For TSA | $8.2M | 2% |
