vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/ (ANF) and BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP INC (BBW), 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 $122.7M, roughly 10.5× BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP INC). ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/ runs the higher net margin — 8.8% vs 6.6%, a 2.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/ posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (6.8% vs 2.7%). ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/ produced more free cash flow last quarter ($131.8M vs $1.7M).
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.
Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. is an American retailer headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri that sells teddy bears, stuffed animals, and characters. During store visits, customers go through an interactive process where the stuffed animal of their choice is assembled and tailored to their own preferences including varying scents, sounds, looks, and outfits. Build-A-Bear Workshop is the largest chain that operates in this style. The company's slogan was "Where Best Friends Are Made" from 1997–201...
ANF vs BBW — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2026 vs Q4 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.3B | $122.7M |
| Net Profit | $113.0M | $8.1M |
| Gross Margin | 62.5% | 53.7% |
| Operating Margin | 12.0% | 8.7% |
| Net Margin | 8.8% | 6.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.8% | 2.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -14.4% | -17.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.36 | $0.62 |
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 | $122.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $124.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $128.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6B | $150.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | — |
| Q4 25 | $113.0M | $8.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $141.4M | $12.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $80.4M | $15.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $187.2M | $21.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $132.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $133.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $113.8M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $158.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | 62.5% | 53.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 62.6% | 57.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 62.0% | 56.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 56.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 65.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 64.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 66.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 62.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | 8.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.1% | 12.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.3% | 15.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.2% | 18.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 15.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | 8.8% | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.7% | 10.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.3% | 11.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.8% | 14.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | $2.36 | $0.62 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.91 | $0.94 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.59 | $1.17 | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.55 | $1.61 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.50 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.50 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.14 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $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 | $631.0M | $27.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.3B | $150.6M |
| Total Assets | $3.5B | $326.5M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $631.0M | $27.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $603.5M | $39.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $607.6M | $44.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $888.9M | $27.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $738.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $738.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $864.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $900.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | $150.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $155.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $148.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $139.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | — |
| Q4 25 | $3.5B | $326.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3B | $318.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.1B | $308.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.3B | $290.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.0B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $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 | $200.1M | $8.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $131.8M | $1.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 10.2% | 1.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 5.3% | 5.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.77× | 1.01× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $384.5M | $37.2M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $200.1M | $8.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $116.9M | $4.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.0M | $27.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $307.6M | $19.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $142.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $165.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $95.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $303.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | $131.8M | $1.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $50.7M | $793.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-54.8M | $24.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $256.8M | $9.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $92.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $122.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $56.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $274.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | 10.2% | 1.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.2% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -5.0% | 19.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.2% | 6.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 18.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | 5.3% | 5.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.5% | 2.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.6% | 2.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.2% | 6.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.77× | 1.01× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.83× | 0.34× | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.05× | 1.81× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.64× | 0.90× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.08× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.24× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.83× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 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
ANF
| Hollister | $673.3M | 52% |
| Abercrombie | $617.3M | 48% |
| Gift Card | $25.7M | 2% |
| Royalty | $19.5M | 2% |
BBW
| Direct To Consumer | $112.3M | 92% |
| Commercial Product And Service | $8.9M | 7% |
| International Franchising | $1.5M | 1% |
