vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Tractor Supply (TSCO) and Ulta Beauty (ULTA), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Tractor Supply is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.9B vs $2.9B, roughly 1.4× Ulta Beauty). Ulta Beauty runs the higher net margin — 5.8% vs 8.1%, a 2.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Ulta Beauty posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (12.9% vs 3.3%). Tractor Supply produced more free cash flow last quarter ($59.3M vs $-81.6M). Over the past eight quarters, Tractor Supply's revenue compounded faster (7.2% CAGR vs 6.3%).
Tractor Supply Company, founded in 1938, is an American chain store that sells home improvement, agriculture, lawn and garden maintenance, livestock, equine and pet care equipment and supplies. It caters to farmers, ranchers, pet owners, and landowners. As of 2024, the company had 2,250 stores. It is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. It is publicly traded on the Nasdaq under the symbol TSCO and is a Fortune 500 company.
Ulta Beauty, Inc., formerly known as Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. and before 2000 as Ulta3, is an American chain of cosmetic stores headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois. Ulta Beauty carries both high- and low-end cosmetics, fragrances, nail products, bath and body products, beauty tools and haircare products. Each location has a beauty salon available to the public.
TSCO vs ULTA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.9B | $2.9B |
| Net Profit | $227.4M | $230.9M |
| Gross Margin | 35.1% | 40.4% |
| Operating Margin | 7.6% | 10.8% |
| Net Margin | 5.8% | 8.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 3.3% | 12.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -3.8% | -4.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.42 | $5.14 |
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 | $3.9B | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.7B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.4B | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.8B | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.5B | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.4B | $3.6B |
| Q4 25 | $227.4M | $230.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $259.3M | $260.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $430.0M | $305.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $179.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $236.4M | $242.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $241.5M | $252.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $425.2M | $313.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $198.2M | $394.4M |
| Q4 25 | 35.1% | 40.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 37.4% | 39.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 36.9% | 39.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 36.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 35.2% | 39.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 37.2% | 38.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 36.6% | 39.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 36.0% | 37.7% |
| Q4 25 | 7.6% | 10.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.2% | 12.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.0% | 14.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.4% | 12.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.4% | 12.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.2% | 14.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.8% | 14.5% |
| Q4 25 | 5.8% | 8.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.0% | 9.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.7% | 10.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.3% | 9.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.0% | 9.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.0% | 11.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.8% | 11.1% |
| Q4 25 | $0.42 | $5.14 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.49 | $5.78 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.81 | $6.70 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.34 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-5.96 | $5.14 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.24 | $5.30 | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.93 | $6.47 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.83 | $8.06 |
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 | $194.1M | $204.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $150.0M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.6B | $2.6B |
| Total Assets | $10.9B | $7.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.06× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $194.1M | $204.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $184.6M | $242.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $225.8M | $454.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $231.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $251.5M | $177.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $186.3M | $414.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $394.7M | $524.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $264.1M | $766.6M |
| Q4 25 | $150.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $150.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $2.6B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.5B | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.2B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.3B | $2.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.3B | $2.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.3B | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | $2.3B |
| Q4 25 | $10.9B | $7.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.9B | $6.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.6B | $6.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.4B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.8B | $6.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.8B | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.8B | $5.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.6B | $5.7B |
| Q4 25 | 0.06× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.07× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $324.8M | $5.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $59.3M | $-81.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 1.5% | -2.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 6.8% | 3.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.43× | 0.02× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $740.5M | $-92.2M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $324.8M | $5.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $307.9M | $96.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $785.8M | $220.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $216.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $517.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $86.3M | $199.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $559.9M | $159.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $257.4M | $1.1B |
| Q4 25 | $59.3M | $-81.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $30.3M | $19.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $575.4M | $141.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $75.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $271.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-101.9M | $104.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $367.3M | $68.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $100.2M | $994.0M |
| Q4 25 | 1.5% | -2.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.8% | 0.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.0% | 4.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.9% | 4.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.6% | 2.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.0% | 28.0% |
| Q4 25 | 6.8% | 3.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.5% | 2.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.7% | 2.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.4% | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.5% | 3.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.6% | 3.5% |
| Q4 25 | 1.43× | 0.02× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.19× | 0.37× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.83× | 0.72× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.21× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.19× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.36× | 0.79× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.32× | 0.51× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.30× | 2.84× |
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.
