Boston Omaha's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Boston Omaha (BOC) against its publicly traded competitors: sales growth, net income, profitability, valuation and market share, plus each peer's market capitalization, revenue, income and employees. Free below: the top 5 peers. Subscriber access adds the full competitor list and CSV downloads.
Key Findings: Boston Omaha vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 109M vs 299,558M combined for its competitors (0.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-18.5% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs holding steady (-0.3%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Boston Omaha generated 2.4% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 1.6% for its competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its -7.3% net margin compares with 11.9% for the peer group.
- Scale: Boston Omaha ranks #34 of 73 companies by market capitalization in the Real Estate Operations industry, holding 0.1% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Boston Omaha accounted for 0.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 0.0% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.26M compares with $0.92M for the peer group (0.3x).
- Structure: Boston Omaha operates in the following segments: LMH, BOB, GIG, BOAM.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
BOC Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Boston Omaha reported revenue growth of 2.40 % year on year in Q2 2026, above its competitors' combined revenue growth of 1.58 %.
With a net margin of -7.26 %, Boston Omaha reported lower profitability than its competitors (11.94 %).
Boston Omaha generated 0.03 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 0.03 % a year earlier.
API endpoints for this dataset
Boston Omaha vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Revenue growth, year on year
Net margin
Revenue run-rate vs trailing 12 months
TTM net margin
TTM = trailing twelve months. Run-rate annualizes the latest quarter (×4) and compares it to TTM. In millions of $. High-Confidence Competitors are named as a competitor directly in Boston Omaha reports; Similar-Size Competitors are the closest peers by market-cap rank within the same industry; Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors are the closest peers by combined revenue growth, operating margin and ROIC, all independent of the competitor list.
TTM revenue, latest-quarter run-rate and net income/margin benchmarked across Boston Omaha and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Boston Omaha Corp | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (12) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (9) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Boston Omaha's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Real Estate Operations industry grew revenue 5.0% year over year, combined, vs 2.4% for Boston Omaha. Boston Omaha's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.03% to 0.03%, a gain of 0.00 percentage points.
Boston Omaha's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boston Omaha Corp | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| Competitors combined (11) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (17) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 62.50 % (5 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 75.00 % (6 of 8) | 12.50 % (1 of 8) |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Altman Z-Score is not shown here: it is not populated in the underlying data for any company. Percentages are of companies in each group that report the relevant metric, not of the full group size.
BOC Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
BOC Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
BOC Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
BOC Stock Performance relative to Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors
5 Best-Performing Tracked Competitors, Trailing 12 Months
| # | Competitor | TTM Share Price Return | vs U.S.A. 500 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Outfront Media Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Lamar Advertising Co | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Chubb Limited | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Progressive Corp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | American Tower Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Boston Omaha's best-performing competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Boston Omaha's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of Boston Omaha Corp
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Boston Omaha Corp |
414.05 | 108.89 |
 Chubb Limited |
144,036.71 | 60,822.00 |
 Progressive Corp |
132,607.69 | 91,735.00 |
 American Tower Corporation |
87,930.45 | 11,009.50 |
 Comcast corporation |
86,877.18 | 123,004.00 |
 Crown Castle Inc |
38,452.40 | 4,161.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 530,559.47 | 360,489.05 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Boston Omaha Corp.
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Boston Omaha Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Boston Omaha's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Boston Omaha reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Charter Communications | Company report | 85% |
| Lamar Advertising Company | Company report | 85% |
| Optimum | Company report | 85% |
| Chubb Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Comcast | Company report | 85% |
| Outfront Media | Company report | 85% |
| Clear Channel Outdoor | Company report | 85% |
| Aircastle Limited | Company report | 85% |
| UBB | Company report | 85% |
| Chubb Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| T-Mobile | Company report | 85% |
| CNA Insurance Group | Company report | 85% |
| Zurich Insurance Group | Company report | 85% |
| T-Mobile | Company report | 85% |
| Liberty Mutual | Company report | 85% |
| Travelers | Company report | 85% |
| AT&T | Company report | 85% |
| HNO International, Inc. | Company report | 85% |
| AireBeam | Company report | 85% |
| Mmtec Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Altice USA | Company report | 85% |
| Lloyds | Company report | 85% |
| Time Inc. | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Boston Omaha's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Boston Omaha's Business Segment Mix vs Peers
Revenue by operating segment or division, as named and reported by each company. Segment names are the filer's own and are not standardized across companies. Do not assume a same-named or similarly-named segment is defined identically between two companies. Shares are of each company's own total revenue and are not required to sum to 100% (intersegment revenue, unallocated items).| Company | Largest Segment |
|---|---|
| Boston Omaha Corp | LMH 38.84 % |
| Chubb Limited | Segment Insurance North American Commercial P&C 31.46 % |
| American Tower Corporation | Property 98.15 % |
| Comcast corporation | Residential Connectivity and Platforms 58.09 % |
| Lamar Advertising Co | Reportable Segment, Aggregation before Other Operating 89.62 % |
| Outfront Media Inc | Billboard Operating 73.12 % |
Source: operating segment revenue as reported in each company's reports (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API, leaf-level reportable segments only (parent roll-up segments are excluded where sub-segments are separately disclosed).
Boston Omaha's Productivity vs Peers Comparison
Revenue and income per employee, trailing 12 months, in $; market cap in millions of $| Company | Market Cap | Revenue / Employee | Income / Employee |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boston Omaha Corp | 414 | 258,036 | -36,674 |
| Chubb Limited | 144,037 | 1,351,600 | 258,356 |
| Progressive Corp | 132,608 | 1,834,700 | 232,440 |
| American Tower Corporation | 87,930 | 2,262,536 | 695,356 |
| Comcast corporation | 86,877 | 687,173 | 61,257 |
| Crown Castle Inc | 38,452 | 1,040,250 | 215,500 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 530,145 | 917,152 | 101,067 |
Boston Omaha's Geographic Revenue Exposure vs Peers
Revenue by country/region as reported in each company's most recent report. Disclosure granularity varies by filer (some report by country, others by broad region) and is shown as disclosed.| Company | Largest Market |
|---|---|
| Outfront Media Inc | United States 100.00 % |
Source: revenue geography as reported in each company's reports (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API. Percentages are of that company's own total consolidated revenue for its most recent reported period.
Boston Omaha's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 66 companies in Boston Omaha's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Boston Omaha ranks #34 of 66 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.11 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,528, indicating a moderately concentrated market structure (see Methodology: Market Structure & Concentration).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Airbnb Inc | 113,424 | 31.14 % |
| 2 | Ke Holdings inc | 65,449 | 17.97 % |
| 3 | Cbre Group Inc | 39,821 | 10.93 % |
| 4 | Rollins Inc | 18,269 | 5.02 % |
| 5 | Api Group Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Jones Lang Lasalle Incorporated | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Invitation Homes Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Terreno Realty Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Firstservice Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Frontdoor Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 34 | Boston Omaha Corp | 414 | 0.11 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Boston Omaha's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-11-06.
Boston Omaha's Same-Size Peers & Stock Performance
Peers chosen by closeness in market-cap rank within the same industry classification (not the named-competitor list above). Trailing 12-month total return, 3-month price momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio vs the broad U.S. market.| Rank | Company | Market Cap | TTM Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29 | Cresud Inc | 546 | -16.29 % |
| 30 | Exp World Holdings inc | 515 | -64.48 % |
| 31 | Gladstone Commercial Corp | 491 | -5.70 % |
| 32 | Ah Realty Trust Inc | 480 | 0.15 % |
| 33 | Tejon Ranch Co | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 34 | Boston Omaha Corp | 414 | 9.74 % |
| 35 | American Realty Investors Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 36 | Frp Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 37 | Sky Harbour Group Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 38 | Five Point Holdings Llc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 39 | Maui Land and Pineapple Co Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Boston Omaha's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-11-06. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Boston Omaha's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Real Estate Operations industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (113 companies). See the full Real Estate Operations industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 0.65 % | 27.51 % (avg) | -26.9 pp |
| Operating Margin | -0.13 % | industry median | -4.7 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 0.09 % | 17.32 % (avg) | -17.2 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 23.44 % | 14.72 % (avg) | +8.7 pp |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. SG&A and R&D as a share of revenue have limited coverage as this data is backfilled and appear only where reported. Higher capital intensity is not inherently negative; it reflects the industry's asset requirements.
Boston Omaha's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Real Estate Operations industry average (113 companies, excluding loss-making/negative-equity outliers), alongside returns on capital for context on whether a premium or discount lines up with measurably stronger or weaker returns. See the full Real Estate Operations industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 32.8x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | 34.3x | 15.6x | +18.7x |
| P/B | 0.7x | 3.1x | -2.3x |
| Return on Equity | -0.02 % | industry aggregate | -6.56 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -0.03 % | 0.60 % (avg) | -0.62 % |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. A valuation premium or discount is not, by itself, a judgment of over- or under-valuation. Compare it against the return and growth context shown elsewhere on this page.
Boston Omaha's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in company reports.| Metric | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 122.11 % | 106.72 % | 10.52 % | 24.55 % | 42.59 % | 18.49 % | 12.49 % | -0.39 % |
| Operating Margin | -61.22 % | -29.99 % | -10.92 % | -41.72 % | -6.44 % | -9.20 % | -7.82 % | -3.64 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -2.06 % | -1.70 % | -0.57 % | -1.83 % | -0.44 % | -0.66 % | -0.64 % | -0.30 % |
| P/E | - | - | - | - | 114.7x | - | - | - |
Source: CSIMarket API, fiscal-year figures. P/E is this company's own historical ratio at each fiscal year end and can swing sharply around an earnings trough: that is real, not a data error.
Boston Omaha's Strategic Group Map
Boston Omaha is shown in red; its closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC are labeled. See Methodology: Strategic Group Map for how this chart is built.
Boston Omaha's trailing-12-month revenue growth of 9.9% and operating margin of -0.1% compares with an average of 8.8% growth and 0.7% margin across its 8 closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC -- Boston Omaha sits above that peer average on growth and below it on margin.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Extreme outlier values (from near-zero-revenue companies) are excluded from the plotted cloud but never from the highlighted company or its labeled peers.
Boston Omaha's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
See Methodology: BCG Growth-Share Matrix for how relative share and growth are calculated and thresholded.
Boston Omaha falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.00x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 5.4% (median, trailing 12 months).
Source: CSIMarket API (market-cap share and industry revenue growth). The 10% growth and 1.0x share lines are standard textbook thresholds, not derived from this industry's own distribution.
Boston Omaha's Competitive Forces (Porter's Five Forces)
Only the forces this data can support honestly are shown; the other three are marked as such rather than guessed.| Force | Assessment | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Competitive Rivalry | Moderate | Industry HHI of 1,528 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | High (capital intensive) | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 23.44 % vs industry average 14.72 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Boston Omaha's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Boston Omaha's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Boston Omaha falls in the Medium attractiveness / Low strength cell: Harvest.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Each axis score is a simple 1(low)/2(medium)/3(high) average across its three inputs -- a transparent, disclosed simplification, not a validated academic scoring model.
Boston Omaha's SWOT
Every point below is a fixed rule applied to a metric already shown elsewhere on this page (Market Structure, Profitability, Valuation, Run-Rate, Stock Performance, Quality Breadth) not an independent strategic assessment. A blank quadrant means no rule was met, not that none apply.Strengths
- Outperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 6.6 points below the industry aggregate.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-18.5% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.00x).
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- High capital intensity requires continuous reinvestment just to keep pace with the industry.
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Boston Omaha's Financial Strength vs Peers Comparison
Quick ratio, working capital, debt to equity and asset turnover, trailing 12 months| Company | Quick Ratio | Working Capital | Debt / Equity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boston Omaha Corp | 0.57 | 2.04 | 0.09 |
| Chubb Limited | - | 1.58 | 0.22 |
| Progressive Corp | 0.06 | 1.06 | 0.24 |
| American Tower Corporation | 0.20 | 0.34 | 5.53 |
| Comcast corporation | 0.26 | 0.84 | 1.49 |
| Crown Castle Inc | 0.12 | 0.31 | - |
Quick ratio = cash / current liabilities; working capital ratio = current assets / current liabilities; asset turnover = revenue / total assets. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Boston Omaha's Revenue and Income Growth vs Peers
Quarterly revenue and net income growth, year over year and quarter over quarter| Company | Period | Revenue Y/Y | Income Y/Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boston Omaha Corp | Q2 2026 | +2.4 % | - |
| Chubb Limited | Q1 2026 | +10.6 % | +74.8 % |
| Progressive Corp | Q3 2026 | +3.0 % | -2.8 % |
| American Tower Corporation | Q3 2026 | +2.5 % | -14.4 % |
| Comcast corporation | Q3 2026 | -6.1 % | +6.1 % |
| Crown Castle Inc | Q2 2026 | -4.9 % | -67.7 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +0.1 % | +4.6 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Boston Omaha's Peers' Costs of Sales and Capital Expenditures
Context for revenue growth: peer costs and capex, year over year and quarter over quarter| Company | Period | Costs Y/Y | Capex Y/Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boston Omaha Corp | Q2 2026 | +3.0 % | -27.5 % |
| Chubb Limited | Q1 2026 | +45.5 % | - |
| Progressive Corp | Q3 2026 | +1,016.0 % | +75.8 % |
| American Tower Corporation | Q3 2026 | +10.3 % | -14.6 % |
| Comcast corporation | Q3 2026 | - | -1.5 % |
| Crown Castle Inc | Q2 2026 | -92.4 % | +47.5 % |
Boston Omaha's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boston Omaha Corp | - | - | - |
| Chubb Limited | 4.31% | 7.30% | 14.91% |
| Progressive Corp | 9.34% | 10.98% | 35.44% |
| American Tower Corporation | 5.36% | 4.51% | 33.40% |
| Comcast corporation | 4.19% | 4.88% | 11.93% |
| Crown Castle Inc | 2.97% | 2.60% | - |
ROA = net income / total assets; ROI = net income / investments; ROE = net income / equity; turnover ratios use trailing 12 month revenue (receivables) and cost of sales (inventory).
Boston Omaha's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Boston Omaha Corp | - | 3.80 |
| Chubb Limited | 12.89 | 2.37 |
| Progressive Corp | 11.47 | 1.45 |
| American Tower Corporation | 26.63 | 7.99 |
| Comcast corporation | 7.69 | 0.71 |
| Crown Castle Inc | 44.98 | 9.24 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 13.37 | 1.47 |
P/E = price / diluted EPS (trailing 12 months); PEG = P/E divided by EPS growth; the average row divides the peers' combined market cap by their combined income, sales, cash flow and equity.