vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. (ALRM) and ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/ (ANF), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/ is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.3B vs $261.7M, roughly 4.9× Alarm.com Holdings, Inc.). Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 13.2% vs 8.8%, a 4.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.0% vs 6.8%). ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/ produced more free cash flow last quarter ($131.8M vs $35.1M). Over the past eight quarters, Alarm.com Holdings, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (8.3% CAGR vs -5.8%).
Alarm.com, Inc. is an American technology company that provides cloud-based services for remote control, home automation, and alarm monitoring services. The company was founded in 2000 as a spinoff from MicroStrategy. The company is based in Tysons, Virginia.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (A&F) is an American lifestyle retailer founded in 1892, which focuses on contemporary clothing targeting customers in their early 20s to mid 40s. Headquartered in New Albany, Ohio, the company operates four offshoot brands: Abercrombie Kids, Your Personal Best, Hollister Co., and Gilly Hicks with 780+ company operated stores across its brands, as of Q4 2024.
ALRM vs ANF — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $261.7M | $1.3B |
| Net Profit | $34.6M | $113.0M |
| Gross Margin | 66.0% | 62.5% |
| Operating Margin | 13.4% | 12.0% |
| Net Margin | 13.2% | 8.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 8.0% | 6.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | 14.8% | -14.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.66 | $2.36 |
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 | $261.7M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $256.4M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $254.3M | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $238.8M | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $242.2M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $240.5M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $233.8M | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $223.3M | $1.5B |
| Q4 25 | $34.6M | $113.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $35.1M | $141.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $34.2M | $80.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.7M | $187.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $30.1M | $132.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $36.7M | $133.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $33.5M | $113.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $23.6M | $158.4M |
| Q4 25 | 66.0% | 62.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 65.8% | 62.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 65.6% | 62.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 67.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 65.5% | 65.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 64.8% | 64.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 65.2% | 66.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 65.7% | 62.9% |
| Q4 25 | 13.4% | 12.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.4% | 17.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.6% | 9.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.4% | 16.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.7% | 14.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.8% | 15.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.0% | 12.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.4% | 15.3% |
| Q4 25 | 13.2% | 8.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.7% | 11.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.5% | 7.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.6% | 11.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.4% | 10.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.3% | 11.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.3% | 11.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.6% | 10.9% |
| Q4 25 | $0.66 | $2.36 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.65 | $2.91 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.63 | $1.59 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.52 | $3.55 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.56 | $2.50 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.67 | $2.50 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.62 | $2.14 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.44 | $2.97 |
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 | $960.6M | $631.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $848.2M | $1.3B |
| Total Assets | $2.1B | $3.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $960.6M | $631.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $603.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $607.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $888.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $738.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $738.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $864.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $747.9M | $900.9M |
| Q4 25 | $848.2M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $827.2M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $797.3M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $759.6M | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $726.5M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $690.3M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $645.5M | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $728.1M | $1.0B |
| Q4 25 | $2.1B | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.1B | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.1B | $3.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.0B | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.0B | $3.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.9B | $3.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | $3.0B |
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 | $35.9M | $200.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $35.1M | $131.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 13.4% | 10.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.3% | 5.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.04× | 1.77× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $137.0M | $384.5M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $35.9M | $200.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $70.6M | $116.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.7M | $-4.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $24.1M | $307.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $56.3M | $142.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $77.3M | $165.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $23.0M | $95.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $49.9M | $303.3M |
| Q4 25 | $35.1M | $131.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $65.9M | $50.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $18.2M | $-54.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.9M | $256.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $54.0M | $92.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $74.5M | $122.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $21.0M | $56.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $46.8M | $274.1M |
| Q4 25 | 13.4% | 10.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 25.7% | 4.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.1% | -5.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.5% | 16.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.3% | 7.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 31.0% | 10.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.0% | 5.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 21.0% | 18.9% |
| Q4 25 | 0.3% | 5.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.9% | 5.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.8% | 4.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.6% | 3.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.9% | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.2% | 3.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.9% | 3.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.4% | 2.0% |
| Q4 25 | 1.04× | 1.77× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.01× | 0.83× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.66× | -0.05× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.87× | 1.64× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.87× | 1.08× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.11× | 1.24× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.69× | 0.83× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.11× | 1.91× |
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
ALRM
| License And Service | $180.2M | 69% |
| Hardwareand Other Revenue | $81.4M | 31% |
ANF
| Hollister | $673.3M | 52% |
| Abercrombie | $617.3M | 48% |
| Gift Card | $25.7M | 2% |
| Royalty | $19.5M | 2% |
