Just to elaborate on the other answers to date -

It's really important when looking at a films profitability to recognize that "gross" does not equal "revenue". The "gross" numbers (from sites like Box Office Mojo) is the total amount of money spent on theatre tickets - That amount has to be split several ways: between the theatre chain, various distributors, possibly sales agencies, and then finally the production company itself (although with "Frozen" Disney is both distributor and production company). Regardless, only a fraction from each ticket actually goes to the production company.

Separate from that, estimated budgets are:
a) often grossly inaccurate, and
b) only "production" budgets which do not include "P&A" (prints and advertising) costs to market a movie. This involves costs like creating thousands of digital prints and shipping them to theatres, paying for contests, buying media advertising, press junkets, posters, trailers, doing tie-in's with fast food chains, flying the cast out to be on late night talk shows... and so on. These costs can be as much (or more) than a films total budget, and often get repaid before the filmmakers see a single cent.

So, just for a random example, if "Frozen" had a $150M budget, and a $150M P&A (total $300M) and they were getting 50% of each ticket, they'd have to sell $600M of tickets to only just break even. I'm not saying that's the case... I'm just saying there's a lot of numbers that are impossible to know if you want to estimate a films "profitability".

By the same token we have no way to know what films make from things like television sales, VOD or EST rentals, home video, licensing characters to toy makers, soundtracks... etc.

"Frozen" was certainly very profitable, and is absolutely the highest grossing animated film in history - however there's absolutely no way for someone without detailed insider information to have the faintest idea of *how* profitable it is, or how that might compare to past films.