vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of GXO Logistics, Inc. (GXO) and RYDER SYSTEM INC (R), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
GXO Logistics, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.5B vs $3.2B, roughly 1.1× RYDER SYSTEM INC). RYDER SYSTEM INC runs the higher net margin — 1.2% vs 4.2%, a 2.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, GXO Logistics, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.9% vs -0.4%). RYDER SYSTEM INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($344.0M vs $115.0M). Over the past eight quarters, GXO Logistics, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (19.5% CAGR vs 1.2%).
GXO Logistics, Inc. is an American global contract logistics company that manages outsourced supply chains and warehousing, and reverse logistics for blue-chip customers in over thirty countries. GXO's corporate headquarters are located in Greenwich, Connecticut, U.S. Its customers include Apple, Nike Inc., Boeing Co., Verizon, Whirlpool, Inditex SA, and Nestle SA.
Ryder System, Inc. is an American transportation and logistics company, specializing in truck rental and leasing, fleet management, supply chain management, and transportation management. It also offers full-service leasing, rental and maintenance, used vehicle sales, transportation management, professional drivers, e-commerce fulfillment, and last-mile delivery services. The company is headquartered in Coral Gables, Florida, and operates in the United States and United Kingdom.
GXO vs R — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.5B | $3.2B |
| Net Profit | $43.0M | $132.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 2.7% | 5.6% |
| Net Margin | 1.2% | 4.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.9% | -0.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | -57.0% | -2.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.35 | $3.22 |
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 | $3.5B | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.4B | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.3B | $3.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.0B | $3.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.3B | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.2B | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.8B | $3.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.5B | $3.1B |
| Q4 25 | $43.0M | $132.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $59.0M | $138.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $26.0M | $131.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-96.0M | $98.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $100.0M | $135.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $33.0M | $142.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $38.0M | $127.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-37.0M | $85.0M |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | 5.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.5% | 6.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.7% | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.9% | 4.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.1% | 5.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.6% | 5.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.6% | 5.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -1.6% | 3.7% |
| Q4 25 | 1.2% | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.7% | 4.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.8% | 4.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | -3.2% | 3.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.1% | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.0% | 4.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.3% | 4.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | -1.5% | 2.7% |
| Q4 25 | $0.35 | $3.22 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.51 | $3.32 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.23 | $3.13 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.81 | $2.27 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.83 | $3.09 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.28 | $3.24 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.32 | $2.84 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.31 | $1.89 |
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 | $854.0M | $198.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.6B | $6.8B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.0B | $3.1B |
| Total Assets | $12.3B | $16.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.88× | 2.24× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $854.0M | $198.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $339.0M | $189.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $205.0M | $180.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $288.0M | $151.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $413.0M | $154.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $548.0M | $162.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $469.0M | $164.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $423.0M | $234.0M |
| Q4 25 | $2.6B | $6.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $7.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.6B | $7.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.5B | $6.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.5B | $6.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.6B | $6.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.6B | $6.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | $6.8B |
| Q4 25 | $3.0B | $3.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.0B | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.9B | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.9B | $3.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $3.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.1B | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9B | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.9B | $3.1B |
| Q4 25 | $12.3B | $16.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.9B | $16.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.9B | $16.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.3B | $16.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.3B | $16.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.9B | $16.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.4B | $16.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.4B | $16.5B |
| Q4 25 | 0.88× | 2.24× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.74× | 2.35× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.88× | 2.27× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.89× | 2.21× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.84× | 2.14× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.82× | 2.17× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.88× | 2.09× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.53× | 2.22× |
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 | $170.0M | $749.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $115.0M | $344.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 3.3% | 10.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.6% | 12.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 3.95× | 5.67× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $110.0M | $459.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $170.0M | $749.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $232.0M | $442.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.0M | $752.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $29.0M | $651.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $186.0M | $558.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $198.0M | $629.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $115.0M | $552.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $50.0M | $526.0M |
| Q4 25 | $115.0M | $344.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $88.0M | $-85.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-44.0M | $63.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-49.0M | $137.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $82.0M | $-201.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $104.0M | $30.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $27.0M | $-87.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-23.0M | $-160.0M |
| Q4 25 | 3.3% | 10.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.6% | -2.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1.3% | 2.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.6% | 4.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.5% | -6.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.3% | 0.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.9% | -2.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.9% | -5.2% |
| Q4 25 | 1.6% | 12.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.2% | 16.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.4% | 21.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.6% | 16.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.2% | 23.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.0% | 18.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.1% | 20.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.0% | 22.1% |
| Q4 25 | 3.95× | 5.67× | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.93× | 3.20× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.12× | 5.74× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 6.64× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.86× | 4.13× | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.00× | 4.43× | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.03× | 4.35× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 6.19× |
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
GXO
Segment breakdown not available.
R
| Fleet Management Solutions | $1.5B | 46% |
| Dedicated Transportation Solutions | $565.0M | 18% |
| Automotive Industry | $351.0M | 11% |
| Consumer Packed Goods | $291.0M | 9% |
| Industrialand Other | $202.0M | 6% |
| CA | $137.0M | 4% |
| Fuel Services | $93.0M | 3% |
| MX | $85.0M | 3% |
