vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of HACKETT GROUP, INC. (HCKT) and LEVI STRAUSS & CO (LEVI), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
LEVI STRAUSS & CO is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.8B vs $75.8M, roughly 23.3× HACKETT GROUP, INC.). LEVI STRAUSS & CO runs the higher net margin — 7.4% vs 8.9%, a 1.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, LEVI STRAUSS & CO posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-4.0% vs -4.4%). Over the past eight quarters, LEVI STRAUSS & CO's revenue compounded faster (6.5% CAGR vs -0.9%).
Hackett Limited is a British multi-channel retailer of clothing for men and boys, with a broad range of apparel and accessories. It was founded in 1983 in London, England. As of June 2019, the company had 160 stores globally, with its flagship store at 14 Savile Row in London. It is owned by both Lebanese holding company M1 Group and American L Capital Asia
Levi Strauss & Co. is an American clothing company known worldwide for its Levi's brand of denim jeans. It was founded in May 1853 when German-Jewish immigrant Levi Strauss moved from Buttenheim, Bavaria, to San Francisco, California, to open a West Coast branch of his brothers' New York dry goods business. Although the corporation is registered in Delaware, the company's corporate headquarters is located in Levi's Plaza in San Francisco.
HCKT vs LEVI — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $75.8M | $1.8B |
| Net Profit | $5.6M | $158.0M |
| Gross Margin | 41.7% | 60.8% |
| Operating Margin | 12.0% | 11.9% |
| Net Margin | 7.4% | 8.9% |
| Revenue YoY | -4.4% | -4.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 56.9% | -13.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.20 | $0.39 |
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 | $75.8M | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $73.1M | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $78.9M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $77.9M | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $79.2M | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $79.8M | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $77.7M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $77.2M | $1.6B |
| Q4 25 | $5.6M | $158.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5M | $218.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7M | $67.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.1M | $135.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.6M | $182.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.6M | $20.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.7M | $18.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.7M | $-10.6M |
| Q4 25 | 41.7% | 60.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 40.7% | 61.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 35.4% | 62.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 35.8% | 62.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 39.4% | 61.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 29.2% | 60.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 27.5% | 60.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 26.2% | 58.2% |
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | 11.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.5% | 10.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.8% | 7.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.7% | 12.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.8% | 11.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.0% | 2.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.1% | 1.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 14.9% | -0.0% |
| Q4 25 | 7.4% | 8.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.5% | 14.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.1% | 4.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.0% | 8.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.5% | 9.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.8% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.3% | 1.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.3% | -0.7% |
| Q4 25 | $0.20 | $0.39 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.09 | $0.55 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.06 | $0.17 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.11 | $0.34 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.11 | $0.46 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.31 | $0.05 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.31 | $0.04 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.32 | $-0.03 |
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 | $18.2M | $848.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.1B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $68.1M | $2.3B |
| Total Assets | $206.4M | $6.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.46× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $18.2M | $848.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.9M | $707.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.1M | $736.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.2M | $574.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $16.4M | $690.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.0M | $577.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.1M | $641.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $13.0M | $516.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $987.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $994.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.0B |
| Q4 25 | $68.1M | $2.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $101.6M | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $119.8M | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $114.4M | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $115.6M | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $110.9M | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $102.2M | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $93.5M | $2.0B |
| Q4 25 | $206.4M | $6.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $200.7M | $6.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $200.5M | $6.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $191.8M | $6.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $193.3M | $6.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $190.8M | $6.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $187.5M | $6.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $179.3M | $6.0B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.46× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.48× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.49× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.49× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.50× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.54× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.51× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.51× |
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 | $19.1M | $266.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $215.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 12.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 2.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 3.41× | 1.69× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $308.2M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $19.1M | $266.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.4M | $24.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.6M | $185.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.2M | $52.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $20.6M | $297.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.6M | $52.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $13.7M | $262.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.8M | $286.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $215.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-39.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.7M | $146.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6M | $-14.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.6M | $231.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.3M | $2.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.8M | $222.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.8M | $214.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -2.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.7% | 10.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.4% | -0.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.8% | 12.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.7% | 0.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.5% | 15.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.4% | 13.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 4.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.4% | 2.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.0% | 4.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.3% | 3.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.5% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.1% | 2.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.2% | 4.6% |
| Q4 25 | 3.41× | 1.69× | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.47× | 0.11× | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.40× | 2.77× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.33× | 0.39× | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.79× | 1.63× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.23× | 2.53× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.57× | 14.60× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.32× | — |
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
HCKT
| Global S And BT | $39.1M | 52% |
| Sap Solutions | $22.4M | 30% |
| Consulting And Software Support And Maintenance | $14.3M | 19% |
LEVI
| Other | $760.3M | 43% |
| Sales Channel Through Intermediary | $583.2M | 33% |
| Sales Channel Directly To Consumer | $376.0M | 21% |
| Beyond Yoga | $46.3M | 3% |
