vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/ (ANF) and Academy Sports & Outdoors, Inc. (ASO), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Academy Sports & Outdoors, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.4B vs $1.3B, roughly 1.1× ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/). ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/ runs the higher net margin — 8.8% vs 5.2%, a 3.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/ posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (6.8% vs 3.0%). ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/ produced more free cash flow last quarter ($131.8M vs $-13.6M). Over the past eight quarters, ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/'s revenue compounded faster (-5.8% CAGR vs -12.2%).
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.
Academy Sports + Outdoors is an American sporting-goods store chain with corporate offices in the Katy Distribution Center in unincorporated western Harris County, Texas, United States, near Katy and west of Houston. For 74 years, it was a privately held company owned by the Gochman family, until its May 2011 acquisition by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. In October 2020, it was listed on NASDAQ.
ANF vs ASO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2026 vs Q4 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.3B | $1.4B |
| Net Profit | $113.0M | $71.6M |
| Gross Margin | 62.5% | 35.7% |
| Operating Margin | 12.0% | 7.3% |
| Net Margin | 8.8% | 5.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.8% | 3.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -14.4% | 8.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.36 | $1.05 |
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 | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6B | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | $1.8B |
| Q4 25 | $113.0M | $71.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $141.4M | $125.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $80.4M | $46.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $187.2M | $133.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $132.0M | $65.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $133.2M | $142.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $113.8M | $76.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $158.4M | $168.2M |
| Q4 25 | 62.5% | 35.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 62.6% | 36.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 62.0% | 34.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 32.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 65.1% | 34.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 64.9% | 36.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 66.4% | 33.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 62.9% | 33.3% |
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | 7.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.1% | 10.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.3% | 5.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.2% | 9.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.8% | 6.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.5% | 12.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.7% | 7.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 15.3% | 11.4% |
| Q4 25 | 8.8% | 5.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.7% | 7.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.3% | 3.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.8% | 8.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.9% | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.7% | 9.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.2% | 5.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.9% | 9.4% |
| Q4 25 | $2.36 | $1.05 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.91 | $1.85 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.59 | $0.68 | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.55 | $1.85 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.50 | $0.92 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.50 | $1.95 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.14 | $1.01 | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.97 | $2.19 |
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 | $631.0M | $289.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.3B | $2.1B |
| Total Assets | $3.5B | $5.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $631.0M | $289.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $603.5M | $300.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $607.6M | $285.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $888.9M | $288.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $738.9M | $296.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $738.4M | $324.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $864.2M | $378.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $900.9M | $347.9M |
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | $2.0B |
| Q4 25 | $3.5B | $5.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3B | $5.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.1B | $5.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.3B | $4.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.3B | $5.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.0B | $4.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.0B | $4.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.0B | $4.7B |
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 | $200.1M | $49.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $131.8M | $-13.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 10.2% | -1.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 5.3% | 4.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.77× | 0.68× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $384.5M | $191.4M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $200.1M | $49.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $116.9M | $78.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.0M | $157.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $307.6M | $140.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $142.6M | $96.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $165.1M | $91.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $95.0M | $199.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $303.3M | $234.7M |
| Q4 25 | $131.8M | $-13.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $50.7M | $21.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-54.8M | $106.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $256.8M | $76.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $92.2M | $34.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $122.3M | $50.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $56.1M | $167.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $274.1M | $178.9M |
| Q4 25 | 10.2% | -1.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.2% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -5.0% | 7.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.2% | 4.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.6% | 2.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.8% | 3.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.5% | 12.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 18.9% | 10.0% |
| Q4 25 | 5.3% | 4.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.5% | 3.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.6% | 3.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.2% | 3.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.2% | 4.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.8% | 2.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.8% | 2.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.0% | 3.1% |
| Q4 25 | 1.77× | 0.68× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.83× | 0.63× | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.05× | 3.42× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.64× | 1.05× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.08× | 1.47× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.24× | 0.64× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.83× | 2.61× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.91× | 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
ANF
| Hollister | $673.3M | 52% |
| Abercrombie | $617.3M | 48% |
| Gift Card | $25.7M | 2% |
| Royalty | $19.5M | 2% |
ASO
| Outdoors | $445.1M | 32% |
| Apparel | $349.8M | 25% |
| Footwear | $292.4M | 21% |
| Sports And Recreation | $288.7M | 21% |
| Other | $7.6M | 1% |
