vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Aramark (ARMK) and Restaurant Brands International Inc. (QSR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Aramark is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.8B vs $2.5B, roughly 2.0× Restaurant Brands International Inc.). Restaurant Brands International Inc. runs the higher net margin — 2.0% vs 6.3%, a 4.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Restaurant Brands International Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.4% vs 6.1%). Restaurant Brands International Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($453.0M vs $-904.4M). Over the past eight quarters, Restaurant Brands International Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (19.1% CAGR vs 7.3%).
Aramark is an American food service and facilities services provider to clients in areas including education, prisons, healthcare, business, and leisure. It operates in North America and an additional 14 countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Chile, Ireland, and Spain.
Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI) is an American-Canadian multinational fast food holding company. It was formed in 2014 by the $12.5 billion merger between American fast food restaurant chain Burger King and Canadian coffee shop and restaurant chain Tim Hortons, and expanded by the purchases of Popeyes and Firehouse Subs in 2017 and 2021, respectively. The company is the fifth-largest operator of fast food restaurants in the world after Subway, McDonald's, Starbucks and Yum! Brands....
ARMK vs QSR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $4.8B | $2.5B |
| Net Profit | $96.2M | $155.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 4.5% | 25.2% |
| Net Margin | 2.0% | 6.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.1% | 7.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | -9.0% | -57.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.36 | $0.33 |
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.
| Q1 26 | $4.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.0B | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.6B | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.3B | $2.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.6B | $2.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.4B | $2.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.4B | $2.1B |
| Q1 26 | $96.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $87.1M | $155.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $436.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $71.8M | $263.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $61.9M | $221.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $105.6M | $361.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $122.4M | $357.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.1M | $399.0M |
| Q1 26 | 4.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 4.3% | 25.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 27.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.9% | 20.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.1% | 20.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.8% | 27.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.0% | 25.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.7% | 31.9% |
| Q1 26 | 2.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.7% | 6.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 17.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.6% | 10.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.4% | 10.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.3% | 15.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.8% | 15.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.3% | 19.2% |
| Q1 26 | $0.36 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.33 | $0.33 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.96 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.27 | $0.57 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.23 | $0.49 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.39 | $0.79 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.46 | $0.79 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.22 | $0.88 |
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 | $439.6M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $6.2B | $13.3B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.2B | $3.6B |
| Total Assets | $13.5B | $25.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.94× | 3.65× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | $439.6M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $639.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $501.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $920.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $484.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $672.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $436.1M | — |
| Q1 26 | $6.2B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.4B | $13.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $13.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.3B | $13.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.1B | $13.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.0B | $13.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.3B | $13.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.0B | $13.7B |
| Q1 26 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.1B | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.1B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.0B | $3.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1B | $3.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.0B | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9B | $3.1B |
| Q1 26 | $13.5B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $13.3B | $25.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $25.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.3B | $25.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.5B | $24.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $12.7B | $24.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.7B | $25.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.5B | $24.8B |
| Q1 26 | 1.94× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.71× | 3.65× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.99× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.03× | 4.10× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.02× | 4.37× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.61× | 4.39× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.42× | 4.22× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.71× | 4.46× |
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 | $-782.2M | $555.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-904.4M | $453.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -18.7% | 18.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.5% | 4.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | -8.13× | 3.58× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $1.4B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | $-782.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $555.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $592.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $76.7M | $449.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $255.9M | $118.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-587.2M | $481.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $540.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $140.7M | $334.0M |
| Q1 26 | $-904.4M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $453.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $531.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-34.7M | $411.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $140.1M | $54.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-707.0M | $404.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $882.3M | $485.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $55.6M | $291.0M |
| Q1 26 | -18.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 18.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 21.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.8% | 17.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.3% | 2.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -15.5% | 17.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.0% | 21.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.3% | 14.0% |
| Q1 26 | 2.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.8% | 4.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.4% | 1.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.7% | 3.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.6% | 3.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 2.1% |
| Q1 26 | -8.13× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 3.58× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.36× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.07× | 1.71× | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.14× | 0.53× | ||
| Q4 24 | -5.56× | 1.33× | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.35× | 1.51× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.42× | 0.84× |
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
ARMK
| Education | $1.1B | 22% |
| Sports Leisure Corrections | $961.2M | 20% |
| Food And Support Services International | $847.8M | 18% |
| Other | $621.6M | 13% |
| Businessand Industry | $510.6M | 11% |
| Health Care | $421.3M | 9% |
| Facility Services | $382.9M | 8% |
QSR
| CA | $1.0B | 41% |
| Other | $330.0M | 13% |
| Advertising | $308.0M | 12% |
| Others | $284.0M | 12% |
| Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen | $195.0M | 8% |
| Burger King | $185.0M | 8% |
| Royalty | $87.0M | 4% |
| Firehouse Subs | $59.0M | 2% |
| Franchisor | $7.0M | 0% |
