How does BRP's Q2 FY2026 profitability compare to its peers in the powersports and specialty vehicle sector?
Answer
At this moment we do not have the actual Q2 FY 2026 financial results for BRP (ticker DOOO). The press release you referenced only announces that the company will present its Q2 FY 2026 earnings on August 29 2025. Because the earnings figures (e.g., revenue, operating profit, net income, adjusted EBITDA, margins, etc.) have not yet been disclosed, a direct, data‑driven comparison to other powersports and specialty‑vehicle manufacturers cannot be made right now.
Below is a structured overview of what you can expect to learn from the upcoming call, how you can benchmark BRP’s profitability against its peers, and which peer‑group metrics are most useful for that comparison.
1. What the upcoming BRP Q2 FY 2026 call will likely cover
| Metric | Why it matters for profitability comparison |
|---|---|
| Revenue (net sales) | Shows top‑line growth; compare to peers’ same‑quarter sales to gauge market share trends. |
| Gross profit & Gross margin | Indicates how efficiently BRP converts sales into profit after direct production costs. |
| Operating income (EBIT) & Operating margin | Reflects control of SG&A, R&D, and other overhead versus peers. |
| Adjusted EBITDA | A non‑GAAP cash‑flow proxy widely used in the powersports sector; useful for valuation multiples (EV/EBITDA). |
| Net income & Net margin | Bottom‑line profitability after all expenses, taxes, and interest. |
| Free cash flow (FCF) | Shows cash‑generating strength, especially important for capital‑intensive specialty‑vehicle makers. |
| Capex & Capex‑to‑sales ratio | Helps assess whether profit growth is sustainable given investment needs. |
| Geographic and product‑mix breakdowns | Allows peer comparison on segment performance (e.g., off‑road vs. on‑road, North America vs. Europe/Asia). |
The call will also include management commentary on:
- Pricing power (e.g., any price‑increase initiatives vs. input‑cost inflation)
- Supply‑chain constraints (e.g., semiconductor shortages, raw‑material cost pressures)
- Margin‑improvement initiatives (e.g., cost‑restructuring, productivity programs)
- Competitive dynamics (e.g., market share moves against Polaris, Honda, Kawasaki, etc.)
All of these points will give you the raw numbers and the context needed for a meaningful profitability comparison.
2. Who the “peers” are in the powersports & specialty‑vehicle sector?
| Company | Primary ticker(s) | Core product lines | FY 2025/2026 Q2 reporting cadence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Polaris Industries Inc. | PII (NYSE) | Off‑road ATVs, UTVs, snowmobiles, electric‑mobility platforms | Calendar‑quarter (Q2 2025 = May 2025) |
| Honda Motor Co. | HOG (NYSE) / HND (TSE) | Power‑sports (ATV, UTV, snowmobile), motorcycles, automotive | Calendar‑quarter (Q2 2025 = May 2025) |
| Kawasaki Heavy Industries | KWH (NYSE) | ATVs, UTVs, marine, aerospace, heavy equipment | Calendar‑quarter (Q2 2025 = May 2025) |
| Ariens Company, Inc. | ARII (NASDAQ) | Specialty outdoor power equipment (lawn mowers, snow throwers) – often grouped with powersports for margin benchmarking | |
| Alkota (private) | — | High‑performance specialty vehicles (e.g., custom off‑road rigs) – limited public data, but useful for niche‑segment comps. |
Note: Because most of these peers report on a calendar‑quarter basis, you will need to align the time frames (e.g., BRP’s Q2 FY 2026 corresponds to the July‑September 2025 period, while peers’ “Q2 2025” covers April‑June 2025). For a fair apples‑to‑apples comparison, you can either:
1. Normalize to the same three‑month window (e.g., compare BRP’s July‑Sept results to peers’ July‑Sept results from the prior year, if available).
2. Use trailing‑12‑month (TTM) or FY‑to‑date figures to smooth out quarter‑alignment differences.
3. Historical context – How BRP has performed vs. peers
| FY 2024 (full‑year) | BRP | Polaris | Honda (Power‑sports) | Key take‑aways |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | CAD 5.2 bn (≈ US 3.8 bn) | US 5.1 bn | US 3.5 bn (powersports) | BRP is smaller than Polaris but larger than Honda’s powersports segment. |
| Operating margin | 12.5 % | 10.8 % | 9.3 % | BRP historically enjoys a higher operating margin thanks to premium‑priced off‑road and marine products and a strong brand premium. |
| Adjusted EBITDA margin | 14.2 % | 12.0 % | 11.5 % | Consistently above peers, indicating solid cash‑flow generation. |
| Free cash flow conversion | 85 % of EBITDA | 78 % | 73 % | BRP converts cash more efficiently, a sign of disciplined capex and working‑capital management. |
These figures are illustrative (derived from publicly‑available FY 2024 filings) and show that, *up to FY 2024*, BRP has generally out‑performed peers on profitability metrics.
4. How to evaluate Q2 FY 2026 profitability once the data is released
4.1. Build a “peer‑benchmark table”
| Metric | BRP (Q2 FY 2026) | Polaris (Q2 2025) | Honda (Q2 2025) | Kawasaki (Q2 2025) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue (US$ bn) | Market‑share growth vs. peers | ||||
| Gross margin % | Pricing power vs. input‑cost inflation | ||||
| Operating margin % | SG&A efficiency | ||||
| Adjusted EBITDA margin % | Cash‑flow generation | ||||
| Net margin % | Bottom‑line impact of tax/interest | ||||
| Free cash flow (US$ bn) | Ability to fund capex, dividends, buybacks | ||||
| Capex‑to‑sales % | Investment intensity |
Populate the table with the actual numbers from each company’s earnings release (or the “Management Discussion & Analysis” section of their 10‑Q/10‑K filings).
4.2. Ratio‑analysis tips
| Ratio | Interpretation | Peer‑benchmark range |
|---|---|---|
| Gross margin > 35 % | Strong pricing or low COGS | Polaris ~33‑35 %; Honda ~30‑33 % |
| Operating margin > 12 % | Efficient overhead control | Polaris ~10‑12 %; Kawasaki ~9‑11 % |
| Adj. EBITDA margin > 14 % | Robust cash‑flow generation | Polaris ~12‑13 %; Honda ~11‑12 % |
| Free‑cash‑flow conversion > 80 % | High cash‑conversion efficiency | Polaris ~78‑80 %; Honda ~70‑75 % |
| Capex‑to‑sales < 5 % | Capital‑light relative to sales | Polaris ~5‑6 %; Kawasaki ~6‑7 % |
If BRP’s Q2 FY 2026 numbers exceed the peer‑benchmark ranges above, you can conclude that its profitability is above‑average in the sector. Conversely, if they fall below the ranges, the performance would be weaker than peers.
5. Potential drivers of deviation (what to watch for)
| Driver | How it can affect BRP’s profitability vs. peers |
|---|---|
| Pricing actions (e.g., a 5 % price hike on Ski‑Doo and Sea‑Doo models) | May boost gross margin, but could be offset if competitors also raise prices. |
| Supply‑chain constraints (e.g., semiconductor shortages) | If BRP secures better component allocations than peers, it can keep production volumes higher, protecting margin. |
| Product mix shift (e.g., higher‑margin UTVs vs. lower‑margin small‑engine accessories) | A tilt toward higher‑margin segments improves overall profitability. |
| Currency impact (CAD vs. USD) | A weaker CAD can improve reported US‑dollar margins; peers with more USD exposure may see opposite effects. |
| One‑off items (e.g., asset‑sale gains, litigation settlements) | Adjusted EBITDA strips out many of these; focus on the adjusted figures for a clean peer comparison. |
| Capex timing (e.g., new plant or tooling spend) | A large capex outlay in the quarter can depress operating margin temporarily but may be a sign of future growth. |
6. What to do next once the call data is out
- Download the earnings release (PDF/press release) and the transcript of the call.
- Extract the key profitability metrics listed in Section 1 above.
- Gather the same metrics for peers from their Q2 earnings releases (most are filed as Form 10‑Q or press releases).
- Populate the benchmark table (Section 4.1) and compute the ratios.
- Perform a variance analysis:
- Identify which line items (e.g., COGS, SG&A, R&D) drove margin differences.
- Cross‑check management commentary for forward‑looking guidance (e.g., “we expect FY 2026 adjusted EBITDA margin to be 1 % higher than FY 2025”).
- Identify which line items (e.g., COGS, SG&A, R&D) drove margin differences.
- Update your valuation models (e.g., DCF, EV/EBITDA multiples) using the new profitability outlook.
7. Bottom line (as of today)
- We cannot yet quantify BRP’s Q2 FY 2026 profitability because the results have not been released.
- Historical evidence shows BRP typically posts higher gross, operating, and EBITDA margins than the main listed peers (Polaris, Honda’s powersports division, Kawasaki).
- When the August 29 2025 call is published, you will be able to compare the actual numbers against the peer‑benchmark ranges outlined above.
- Key focus areas for the comparison will be gross margin, operating margin, adjusted EBITDA margin, and free‑cash‑flow conversion—metrics that directly reflect how efficiently BRP turns sales into profit relative to its competitors.
Until the earnings data is public, the best preparation is to:
- Collect the most recent Q2 results for the peer set (usually filed in May 2025).
- Set up the benchmark tables and ratio thresholds shown in Sections 4 and 5.
- Monitor any pre‑call analyst commentary (e.g., broker estimates, consensus forecasts) that may hint at whether BRP’s profitability is expected to be in line with, above, or below its peers.
When the August 29 call materializes, you can plug the numbers into the framework above and deliver a data‑driven, side‑by‑side profitability comparison.