Marriott vs Hilton: Q2 2026 Earnings Compared

Mirror images: Marriott's fees grew twice as fast, but Hilton's reported profit grew faster

Marriott and Hilton had nearly the same quarter at their hotels. RevPAR, the industry's main measure of room revenue, rose 3.4% at Marriott and 3.9% at Hilton. Both saw a strong U.S. and a collapse in the Middle East. Their earnings still point in opposite directions. Marriott's fee revenue rose 12.7%, yet its reported net income was flat at $766 million. Hilton's fee revenue rose 6.4%, yet its reported net income climbed 9.0% to $482 million. On each company's own adjusted basis the gap flips: Marriott's adjusted EPS rose 20.4%, Hilton's only 4.1%.

The main reason is a pass-through accounting line that hurt Marriott's reported profit and helped Hilton's. Credit-card fees add to the gap.

This comparison uses only the figures in our two published analyses: Marriott International Q2 2026 and Hilton Worldwide Q2 2026.

Side by side

Some plain-English definitions. RevPAR (revenue per available room) is room revenue divided by all rooms, including empty ones, so it captures both how full hotels are and what they charge. Operating margin is the share of revenue left after running the business, before interest and tax. Adjusted EBITDA is profit before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, leaving out items the company treats as one-offs. Neither company owns many hotels. Most of their revenue is "cost reimbursements": money hotel owners pay them to cover shared costs, with no markup. That is about $5.1 billion of Marriott's $7.1 billion and $1,982 million of Hilton's $3,341 million, which is why both reported margins look low.

What drove Marriott's numbers

Marriott's RevPAR growth came from pricing. Average daily rate rose 3.5% while occupancy was flat. Luxury led in the U.S., with luxury RevPAR up 9.1%, and the June World Cup helped. The Middle East wiped out gains elsewhere abroad, and international RevPAR fell 0.5% overall.

Fees grew far faster than RevPAR mainly because of credit cards. Franchise fees rose 19% to $1,023 million. The 10-Q credits $73 million of that increase to co-branded credit card fees and $30 million to new rooms. Marriott recently signed new long-term U.S. card agreements with JPMorgan Chase and American Express.

Reported profit stayed flat for three reasons. There was a $68 million impairment (an asset write-down) tied to selling a hotel, and a $27 million litigation accrual. The third was a $100 million swing in cost reimbursements: this quarter those programs cost $42 million more than they brought in, while a year ago they brought in $58 million more than they cost. Buybacks cut the diluted share count 3.7%, which is how EPS grew 4.3% on flat profit.

What drove Hilton's numbers

Hilton's RevPAR beat its own 2%–3% forecast. U.S. RevPAR rose 5.4% on business, group and leisure travel "aided by the World Cup." Middle East & Africa fell 29.5%, with occupancy down 16.1 points. Franchise and licensing fees rose 8.5% to $808 million. That included $26 million from existing franchised hotels, $15 million from new hotels and $34 million more in licensing fees, mainly from co-branded credit cards, timeshare and branded residences. Lower termination fees worked against it. Incentive management fees, which depend on how profitable managed hotels are, fell 8%, and the 10-Q blames "conflicts in certain regions."

Hilton's reported profit got the reverse of Marriott's reimbursement swing. Its shortfall on those programs narrowed to $26 million from $84 million, and our report says about $58 million of Hilton's $80 million operating income increase came from that. Below operating income, interest expense rose 21% to $183 million on new bond issues. As a result, adjusted net income was flat ($524 million against $527 million), and all of the 4.1% adjusted EPS gain came from a smaller share count: 229 million diluted shares, down from 239 million.

Where they diverge, and why

• Reported profit vs. adjusted profit. The reimbursement line moved against Marriott and in favor of Hilton. Both companies say these programs break even over time, so each leaves the gap out of its adjusted results. That is why Marriott looks weak on reported (GAAP) numbers and strong on adjusted ones, and Hilton looks the other way round.
• Credit cards. Card fees were the largest driver of Marriott's franchise-fee growth ($73 million). For Hilton they were one part of a $34 million licensing increase. That accounts for a large part of the gap between 12.7% and 6.4% fee growth.
• Incentive fees. Both have exposure to the Middle East, but Marriott's incentive fees still rose 6% on U.S. strength, while Hilton's fell 8%.
• Growth vs. borrowing costs. Hilton adds rooms faster (6.1% against 4.5%). But its interest bill rose 21%, against Marriott's rise to $221 million from $203 million. Both are borrowing while buying back stock. Marriott spent $1.1 billion on 3.0 million shares and its debt rose to $16.9 billion. Hilton spent $932 million on 2.9 million shares and its net debt rose to $12,380 million, 3.2 times adjusted EBITDA.

Takeaway: Ignore the reported net income lines when comparing these two this quarter. They are driven in opposite directions by a pass-through accounting swing that both companies call timing. On the fee business, Marriott is clearly ahead: adjusted EBITDA +13% against +4.6%, helped by higher co-branded credit card fees. Hilton's edge is room growth. It is adding rooms faster, but rising interest costs mean its per-share growth now comes almost entirely from buybacks.

What to watch next quarter

Both companies raised full-year RevPAR guidance to the same 3.0%–3.5% range.

Marriott guides Q3 RevPAR growth of 3.5%–4.0% and adjusted EPS of $2.74–$2.82. It expects full-year adjusted EPS of $11.64–$11.81 and more than $4.5 billion of capital returns. It says the Middle East impact is continuing into Q3, and net rooms growth is now at the low end of its 4.5%–5% range. Watch whether the new card agreements keep fee growth well ahead of RevPAR.

Hilton guides Q3 RevPAR growth of about 4% and adjusted EBITDA of $1,035–$1,055 million. For the full year it expects adjusted EPS of $8.89–$9.01 and about $3.5 billion of capital returns. Our report calculates that the full-year range implies second-half adjusted EBITDA growth of about 8%–11%, roughly double Q2's 4.6%. Some of Q2's beat ($17 million) was pulled forward from the second half. Watch whether that acceleration shows up, and whether leverage climbs past 3.2 times.