vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Howard Hughes Holdings Inc. (HHH) and ST JOE Co (JOE), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Howard Hughes Holdings Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($624.4M vs $128.9M, roughly 4.8× ST JOE Co). ST JOE Co runs the higher net margin — 1.0% vs 23.2%, a 22.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, ST JOE Co posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (23.5% vs -33.2%). Howard Hughes Holdings Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($348.6M vs $43.9M). Over the past eight quarters, Howard Hughes Holdings Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (91.0% CAGR vs 21.2%).
Howard Hughes Holdings Inc., formerly the Howard Hughes Corporation, is a real estate development and management company based in The Woodlands, Texas. It was formed in 2010 as a spin-off from General Growth Properties (GGP). Most of its holdings are focused on several master-planned communities. It took its name from the original Howard Hughes Corporation, which had developed the planned community of Summerlin, Nevada, and later became a subsidiary of GGP.
The St. Joe Company is a land development company headquartered in Panama City Beach, Florida. Founded in 1936 and until 1966 known as St. Joe Paper Company, the company still operates a forestry division but is primarily engaged in real estate development and asset management. The company's land holdings are concentrated in Northwest Florida with the vast majority located in Bay and Walton counties. Of the 110,500 acres The St. Joe Company owns that fall within the Bay-Walton Sector Plan, 53...
HHH vs JOE — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $624.4M | $128.9M |
| Net Profit | $6.0M | $29.9M |
| Gross Margin | — | 45.4% |
| Operating Margin | 4.2% | 30.6% |
| Net Margin | 1.0% | 23.2% |
| Revenue YoY | -33.2% | 23.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | -96.2% | 58.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.20 | $0.51 |
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 | $624.4M | $128.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $390.2M | $161.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $260.9M | $129.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $199.3M | $94.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $935.0M | $104.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $327.1M | $99.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $317.4M | $111.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $171.1M | $87.8M |
| Q4 25 | $6.0M | $29.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.5M | $38.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-12.1M | $29.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.5M | $17.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $156.3M | $18.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $72.8M | $16.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $21.1M | $24.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-52.5M | $13.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | 45.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 44.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 42.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 37.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 42.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 39.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 44.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 39.0% |
| Q4 25 | 4.2% | 30.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 48.6% | 32.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 26.0% | 28.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 24.0% | 17.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 33.5% | 24.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 60.6% | 21.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.4% | 29.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -9.8% | 18.2% |
| Q4 25 | 1.0% | 23.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 30.6% | 24.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -4.7% | 22.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.3% | 18.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.7% | 18.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.2% | 17.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.6% | 22.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | -30.7% | 15.9% |
| Q4 25 | $0.20 | $0.51 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.02 | $0.67 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.22 | $0.51 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.21 | $0.30 | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.14 | $0.32 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.46 | $0.29 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.42 | $0.42 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.06 | $0.24 |
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 | $1.5B | $129.6M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $5.1B | $391.2M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.8B | $766.3M |
| Total Assets | $10.6B | $1.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.35× | 0.51× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $129.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | $126.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $88.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $493.7M | $94.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $596.1M | $88.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $400.7M | $82.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $436.8M | $86.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $462.7M | $89.8M |
| Q4 25 | $5.1B | $391.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $399.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $427.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $434.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.1B | $437.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $443.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $447.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $452.0M |
| Q4 25 | $3.8B | $766.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.8B | $760.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.6B | $738.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.8B | $727.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.8B | $724.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.6B | $716.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.0B | $708.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.9B | $690.4M |
| Q4 25 | $10.6B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.7B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.3B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.3B | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.2B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.4B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.9B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.6B | $1.5B |
| Q4 25 | 1.35× | 0.51× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.52× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.58× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.60× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.85× | 0.60× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.62× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.63× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.65× |
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 | $360.3M | $44.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $348.6M | $43.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 55.8% | 34.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.9% | 0.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 60.04× | 1.48× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $417.6M | $186.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $360.3M | $44.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $149.8M | $86.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $177.3M | $31.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-224.9M | $29.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $337.1M | $29.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $248.3M | $27.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.5M | $22.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-171.2M | $27.6M |
| Q4 25 | $348.6M | $43.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $137.7M | $85.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $169.7M | $29.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-238.4M | $27.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $317.1M | $27.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $238.7M | $25.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-25.1M | $21.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-182.0M | $25.2M |
| Q4 25 | 55.8% | 34.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 35.3% | 52.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 65.1% | 23.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -119.6% | 29.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 33.9% | 26.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 73.0% | 26.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.9% | 19.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -106.4% | 28.7% |
| Q4 25 | 1.9% | 0.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.1% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.9% | 1.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.8% | 1.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.1% | 2.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.9% | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.4% | 1.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.3% | 2.7% |
| Q4 25 | 60.04× | 1.48× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.25× | 2.23× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.05× | ||
| Q1 25 | -21.35× | 1.66× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.16× | 1.58× | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.41× | 1.65× | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.83× | 0.93× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.98× |
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
HHH
| Transferred At Point In Time | $499.8M | 80% |
| Operating Assets Segment | $117.9M | 19% |
| Builder Price Participation | $12.9M | 2% |
JOE
| Residential Real Estate Segment | $57.2M | 44% |
| Hospitality Segment | $47.4M | 37% |
| Commercial | $20.5M | 16% |
| Sjbb Llc | $2.8M | 2% |
