vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of 英国电信集团 (BTBD) and Cable One, Inc. (CABO), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Cable One, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($363.7M vs $3.9M, roughly 94.4× 英国电信集团). On growth, Cable One, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-6.1% vs -11.4%). Cable One, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($71.6M vs $261.8K). Over the past eight quarters, 英国电信集团's revenue compounded faster (-1.8% CAGR vs -5.2%).
英国电信集团是总部位于英国伦敦的跨国电信控股企业，业务遍及约180个国家，是英国规模最大的固网、宽带与移动服务供应商，同时也提供订阅电视与IT服务。
Cable One, Inc.是美国一家宽带通信服务商，以Sparklight为品牌面向美国24个州的110万个人及商业客户提供有线电视、互联网与电话服务。该公司还拥有Fidelity Communications品牌，在阿肯色、路易斯安那、密苏里、俄克拉荷马与德克萨斯提供同类通信服务，其总部坐落于亚利桑那州凤凰城。
BTBD vs CABO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.9M | $363.7M |
| Net Profit | $915.0K | — |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 19.1% | 25.2% |
| Net Margin | 23.7% | — |
| Revenue YoY | -11.4% | -6.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 516.9% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.15 | $-0.49 |
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 | — | $363.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.9M | $376.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.8M | $381.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.2M | $380.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $387.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.3M | $393.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.1M | $394.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.2M | $404.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $915.0K | $86.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $55.0K | $-438.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-329.8K | $2.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-219.5K | $44.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-70.0K | $38.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-445.7K | $37.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | 25.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.1% | 25.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.0% | -128.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -9.0% | 25.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 26.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.7% | 28.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -4.6% | 27.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -19.8% | 29.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 23.7% | 23.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.5% | -114.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -10.2% | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -5.0% | 11.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.7% | 9.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -14.0% | 9.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-0.49 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.15 | $14.52 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-77.70 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.46 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-18.05 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.04 | $7.58 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $6.58 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $6.46 |
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 | $3.5M | $152.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $2.6B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $7.7M | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $11.9M | $5.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 1.81× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $152.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.5M | $166.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.0M | $152.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.7M | $149.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $153.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.0M | $226.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5M | $201.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5M | $210.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.6B |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.7M | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.8M | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.7M | $1.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.5M | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.7M | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.8M | $1.9B |
| Q4 25 | — | $5.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.9M | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.2M | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.0M | $6.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $6.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.7M | $6.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $14.0M | $6.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $14.0M | $6.7B |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.81× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.88× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.16× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.66× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.99× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.84× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.87× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.93× |
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 | $325.2K | $145.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $261.8K | $71.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 6.8% | 19.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.6% | 20.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.36× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $278.1M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $145.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $325.2K | $156.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $384.4K | $144.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-306.7K | $116.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $167.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $129.3K | $176.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $82.5K | $155.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-408.9K | $164.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $71.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $261.8K | $84.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $76.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-431.1K | $45.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $95.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $50.4K | $99.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $53.7K | $84.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-521.3K | $98.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | 19.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.8% | 22.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 20.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | -13.3% | 11.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 24.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.2% | 25.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.3% | 21.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -16.3% | 24.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | 20.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.6% | 19.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.0% | 17.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.8% | 18.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 18.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.8% | 19.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.7% | 18.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.5% | 16.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.36× | 1.81× | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.98× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 44.62× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.99× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 4.08× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 4.41× |
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.
