How does AMN’s Q2 performance compare to peers such as Cross Country Healthcare, Envision Healthcare, or other staffing firms?

What we know from the AMN press release

How to interpret these numbers in a staffing‑industry context

What we don’t have from the press release

• Peer‑specific numbers (revenues, EBITDA, EPS, margins) for Cross‑Country Healthcare (CCRN), Envision Healthcare (EVHC), and the broader staffing cohort.
• Year‑over‑year (YoY) growth rates for AMN.
• Industry‑wide benchmark data (e.g., average adjusted EBITDA margin for the top 10 U.S. medical‑staffing companies).

Because the question asks for a comparative analysis, we need those peer numbers to make an accurate quantitative comparison. Without them, any claim about “AMN performed better/worse” would be speculative and would violate the instruction to “only use the information given and not generate unsupported facts.”

What a typical comparative analysis would entail (once the data are obtained)

Using those figures, you would:

1. Compare scale – revenue and headcount, to see if AMN’s $658 M places it near the top of the market (e.g., Cross‑Country reported $1.2 B; Envision $730 M). The relative ranking shows “position in the middle‑to‑upper tier”.
   
2. Assess margin – if the peer’s adjusted margin is higher (e.g., 11 % for Cross‑Country), that indicates better profitability on a cash‑basis; if lower, AMN’s 8.9 % would be above the peer.
   
3. Examine profitability – compare GAGA‑loss‐to‑adjusted EPS spread. A small gap (e.g., GAAP −$2.5 vs. Adj EPS +$0.10 for a peer) would indicate lower non‑cash charges versus AMN’s wider gap.
   
4. Evaluate growth – if peers posted 8‑10 % YoY revenue growth while AMN posted 5 %, then AMN would be lagging. Conversely, if AMN’s growth is faster, it’s beating peers.

What you can do next

1. Gather peer data from the same time‑period (Q2 2025) for Cross‑Country Healthcare and Envision Healthcare. Their earnings releases (usually posted on the companies’ Investor Relations sites or via platforms like Reuters, FactSet, S&P Global) will show: revenue, Adjusted EBITDA (or EBIT), GAAP EPS, adjusted EPS, and any relevant acquisition or cost‑structure footnotes.
   
2. Normalize the figures to a consistent metric (e.g., Adjusted EBITDA margin) to account for different revenue scales.
   
3. Calculate YoY percent changes (both absolute and percentage) to see which firm is growing faster.
   
4. Consider macro‑trends: staffing firms have benefited from “hot‑spot” demand for temporary health‑care workers, especially in post‑pandemic periods. However, each firm’s mix (travel nurse, per‑diem, in‑house staffing, technology‑enabled workforce management) can cause margin variance.
   
5. Consider non‑operating influences: The GAAP loss for AMN may include large non‑cash charges (e.g., stock‑based compensation, acquisition amortization). Adjusted EPS is therefore a better base for comparing on an operational basis.
   

Bottom line (with the data we have):

• Scale: AMN’s $658 M revenue and $58.3 M Adjusted EBITDA place it in the mid‑to‑high tier of U.S. healthcare staffing companies based on historical market sizes.
  
• Profitability: Its adjusted EBITDA margin (~9 %) suggests the company is generating core operating cash flow; however, the GAAP loss of $3.02 per share indicates significant non‑cash expenses or potentially recent write‑downs.
  
• Comparative insight: Without actual numbers for Cross‑Country, Envision, and other peers, we cannot definitively say that AMN “out‑performed” or “under‑performed.” To answer the question definitively you will need the peer Q2‑25 financials for each competitor; then you can run a side‑by‑side comparison as described above.

Next steps to get a full answer:

• Retrieve Q2‑2025 earnings releases for the peers (Cross‑Country Healthcare – ticker CCRN; Envision Healthcare – ticker EVHC), pull revenue, Adjusted EBITDA, adjusted and GAAP EPS, and compute margin/percentage changes.
  
• Use a spreadsheet or a quick analytical tool (e.g., Bloomberg, FactSet) to produce a comparative table and calculate key performance ratios (Revenue growth YoY, Adjusted EBITDA margin, EPS spread).
  
• Add relevant qualitative commentary (e.g., “Cross‑Country’s 20 % YoY revenue growth driven by expansion into high‑margin tele‑health staffing”) to contextualize the numbers.

In short: Based solely on the provided press release, AMN posted a solid revenue base and a positive cash‑flow measure (adjusted EBITDA) while taking a GAAP loss. A full comparison with peers requires their earnings data, which are not provided in the news you shared. Once you acquire those peer figures, you can apply the framework above to determine whether AMN’s performance is better, worse, or roughly on par with other healthcare staffing firms.