vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC (EAT) and Cactus, Inc. (WHD), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.5B vs $261.2M, roughly 5.6× Cactus, Inc.). Cactus, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 8.8% vs 15.3%, a 6.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (6.9% vs -4.0%). Over the past eight quarters, BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC's revenue compounded faster (13.9% CAGR vs -2.4%).
Brinker International, Inc. is an American multinational hospitality industry company that owns Chili's and Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant chains. Founded in 1975 and based in Dallas, Texas, Brinker currently owns, operates, or franchises 1,672 restaurants under the names Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy worldwide.
Cactus Club Cafe is a Canadian-owned chain of premium casual restaurants that originated in North Vancouver, British Columbia. The chain has since expanded to 34 locations throughout Canada, with other locations throughout British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the United States
EAT vs WHD — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.5B | $261.2M |
| Net Profit | $128.5M | $39.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | 36.2% |
| Operating Margin | 11.6% | 22.9% |
| Net Margin | 8.8% | 15.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.9% | -4.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 8.4% | -14.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.86 | — |
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 | $1.5B | $261.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $264.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $273.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | $280.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $272.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $293.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $290.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1B | $274.1M |
| Q4 25 | $128.5M | $39.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $99.5M | $41.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $107.0M | $40.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $119.1M | $44.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $118.5M | $46.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $38.5M | $49.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $57.3M | $49.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $48.7M | $39.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 36.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 36.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 36.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 38.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 37.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 39.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 39.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 38.4% |
| Q4 25 | 11.6% | 22.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.7% | 23.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.8% | 22.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.0% | 24.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.5% | 25.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.0% | 26.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.1% | 27.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.2% | 22.8% |
| Q4 25 | 8.8% | 15.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.4% | 15.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.3% | 14.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.4% | 15.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.7% | 17.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.4% | 17.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | 17.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.3% | 14.2% |
| Q4 25 | $2.86 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.17 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.31 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.56 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.61 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.84 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.22 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.08 | — |
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 | $15.0M | $123.6M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $451.3M | $0 |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $379.3M | $1.2B |
| Total Assets | $2.7B | $1.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.19× | 0.00× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $15.0M | $123.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $33.6M | $445.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $18.9M | $405.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.5M | $347.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $14.8M | $342.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $16.2M | $303.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $64.6M | $246.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $15.5M | $194.3M |
| Q4 25 | $451.3M | $0 | ||
| Q3 25 | $525.8M | $0 | ||
| Q2 25 | $426.0M | $0 | ||
| Q1 25 | $518.3M | $0 | ||
| Q4 24 | $652.0M | $0 | ||
| Q3 24 | $806.9M | $0 | ||
| Q2 24 | $786.3M | $0 | ||
| Q1 24 | $818.5M | $0 |
| Q4 25 | $379.3M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $343.9M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $370.9M | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $259.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $131.5M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.7M | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $39.4M | $954.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-46.7M | $893.4M |
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $1.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.7B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7B | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $1.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.6B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.5B | $1.6B |
| Q4 25 | 1.19× | 0.00× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.53× | 0.00× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.15× | 0.00× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.00× | 0.00× | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.96× | 0.00× | ||
| Q3 24 | 63.54× | 0.00× | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.96× | 0.00× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.00× |
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 | $218.9M | $72.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $155.2M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 10.7% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 4.4% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.70× | 1.81× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $455.9M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $218.9M | $72.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $120.8M | $61.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $186.0M | $82.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $212.0M | $41.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $218.2M | $66.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $62.8M | $85.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $141.5M | $78.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $130.1M | $86.3M |
| Q4 25 | $155.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $62.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $106.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $132.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $168.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $83.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $78.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | 10.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.9% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 4.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.70× | 1.81× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.21× | 1.48× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.74× | 2.05× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.78× | 0.94× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.84× | 1.43× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.63× | 1.71× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.47× | 1.56× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.67× | 2.21× |
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
EAT
| Chilis Restaurants | $1.3B | 91% |
| Maggianos Restaurants | $134.9M | 9% |
| Franchise Revenues | $13.4M | 1% |
WHD
| Products | $201.4M | 77% |
| Other | $40.8M | 16% |
| Rental Revenue | $19.0M | 7% |
