Columbus Mckinnon's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Columbus Mckinnon (CMCO) 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: Columbus Mckinnon vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 1,489M vs 118,927M combined for tracked competitors (1.2% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+42.7% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+9.3%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Columbus Mckinnon generated 125.8% revenue growth year over year in Q1 2026, vs 18.4% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its -16.7% net margin compares with 14.8% for the peer group.
- Scale: Columbus Mckinnon ranks #15 of 20 companies by market capitalization in the Construction & Mining Machinery industry, holding 0.1% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Columbus Mckinnon accounted for 1.6% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 0.9% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.20M compares with $0.52M for the peer group (0.4x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
CMCO Sales vs. its Competitors, Q1 2026
Columbus Mckinnon reported revenue growth of 125.82 % year on year in Q1 2026, above its competitors' combined revenue growth of 18.42 %.
With a net margin of -16.65 %, Columbus Mckinnon reported lower profitability than its competitors (14.78 %).
Columbus Mckinnon generated 1.61 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 0.85 % a year earlier.
Columbus Mckinnon vs. its Competitors, Q1 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 an SEC filing; 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 Columbus Mckinnon and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (5) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (7) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (6) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Columbus Mckinnon's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Construction & Mining Machinery industry grew revenue 6.1% year over year, combined, vs 125.8% for Columbus Mckinnon. Columbus Mckinnon's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.43% to 0.92%, a gain of 0.49 percentage points.
Columbus Mckinnon's Competitor Quality Breadth
Share of each group, trailing 12 months: profitable (net margin > 0), expanding (revenue growth > 0), growing faster than the industry's own median, and financially distressed (Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below).
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| Competitors combined (9) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (7) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (9) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 87.50 % (7 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 57.10 % (4 of 7) |
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.
CMCO Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
CMCO Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
CMCO Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
CMCO 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 | The Manitowoc Company Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Caterpillar Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Quaker Chemical Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Terex Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | 3m Company | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Columbus Mckinnon's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Columbus Mckinnon's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of Columbus Mckinnon Corp
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | 471.34 | 1,489.38 |
| Caterpillar Inc | 379,226.88 | 74,729.00 |
| 3m Company | 88,536.35 | 25,180.00 |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | 10,468.51 | 6,057.80 |
| Terex Corporation | 6,338.10 | 6,677.00 |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | 2,758.48 | 1,975.35 |
| SUBTOTAL | 490,775.78 | 126,109.89 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
Sources: Columbus Mckinnon Corp's official press releases and regulatory filings; CSIMarket.com's market research; and the financial filings and press releases of the other companies cited.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Columbus Mckinnon Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Columbus Mckinnon's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Fujitec | Named by the company | 85% |
| Jet | Named by the company | 85% |
| Lifket/ChainMaster | Named by the company | 85% |
| Power Electronics International, Inc. | Named by the company | 85% |
| American Chain and Cable Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Terex | Named by the company | 85% |
| Cattron Holdings | Named by the company | 85% |
| ACE World Companies | Named by the company | 85% |
| Delachaux Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| Emerson Electric | Named by the company | 85% |
| Harrington | Named by the company | 85% |
| Konecranes | Named by the company | 85% |
| Peerless Chain Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Stuart Rush | Named by the company | 85% |
| Campbell Chain | Named by the company | 85% |
| Control Techniques | Named by the company | 85% |
| Dorner | Named by the company | 85% |
| Garvey | Named by the company | 85% |
| KEB GmbH | Named by the company | 85% |
| Nidec Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| STAHL CraneSystems | Named by the company | 85% |
| AMH | Named by the company | 85% |
| Tractel | Named by the company | 85% |
| Conductix | Named by the company | 85% |
| Harbour Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| Demag | Named by the company | 85% |
| Fujit | Named by the company | 85% |
| Ingersoll Rand | Named by the company | 85% |
| Laclede Chain Manufacturing | Named by the company | 85% |
| Pewag Chain | Named by the company | 85% |
| Abus | Named by the company | 85% |
| SWF | Named by the company | 85% |
| Cattron Group International | Named by the company | 85% |
| Crosby Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| Elephant | Named by the company | 85% |
| Harbor Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| Kito | Named by the company | 85% |
| OMRON Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Street | Named by the company | 85% |
| Brewer Tichner Company | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Columbus Mckinnon's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: relationships are extracted from SEC filings (named-competitor disclosures) and corroborating sources. Named by the company = explicitly disclosed as a competitor; Inferred = derived from corroborating signals. Confidence reflects evidence strength.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 |
|---|---|
| Caterpillar Inc | Construction Industries 41.12 % |
| 3m Company | Safety and Industrial 47.55 % |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | Industrial Powertrain Solutions 43.83 % |
| Terex Corporation | Aerials 27.05 % |
| Huntsman Corporation | Polyurethanes 58.14 % |
Source: operating segment revenue as reported in each company's SEC filings (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).
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | 471 | 204,025 | -43,284 |
| Caterpillar Inc | 379,227 | 633,297 | 91,873 |
| 3m Company | 88,536 | 416,198 | 49,785 |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | 10,469 | 207,459 | 11,123 |
| Terex Corporation | 6,338 | 624,019 | 13,925 |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | 2,758 | 420,287 | 20,809 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 490,304 | 521,861 | 59,695 |
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
Columbus Mckinnon's Geographic Revenue Exposure vs Peers
Revenue by country/region as reported in each company's most recent filing. Disclosure granularity varies by filer (some report by country, others by broad region) and is shown as disclosed.| Company | Largest Market |
|---|---|
| Caterpillar Inc | Latin America -0.11 % |
| 3m Company | Americas 54.09 % |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | North America 69.02 % |
| Terex Corporation | North America 77.97 % |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | Americas 44.48 % |
Source: revenue geography as reported in each company's SEC filings (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API. Percentages are of that company's own total consolidated revenue for its most recent reported period.
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
Columbus Mckinnon's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 19 companies in Columbus Mckinnon's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Columbus Mckinnon ranks #15 of 19 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.11 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 7,968, indicating a highly concentrated market structure (U.S. antitrust guidance: below 1,500 unconcentrated, 1,500 to 2,500 moderately concentrated, above 2,500 highly concentrated).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Caterpillar Inc | 379,227 | 89.11 % |
| 2 | Cnh Industrial N v | 16,456 | 3.87 % |
| 3 | Applied Industrial Technologies Inc | 12,774 | 3.00 % |
| 4 | Terex Corporation | 6,338 | 1.49 % |
| 5 | Blue Bird Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Distribution Solutions Group Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Astec Industries Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Douglas Dynamics Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Aebi Schmidt Holding Ag | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | The Manitowoc Company Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 15 | Columbus Mckinnon Corp | 471 | 0.11 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Columbus Mckinnon's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-09-28.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | The Manitowoc Company Inc | 810 | 125.69 % |
| 11 | Hyliion Holdings Corp | 707 | 86.01 % |
| 12 | Miller Industries Inc | 623 | 38.65 % |
| 13 | Hyster yale Inc | 571 | -13.18 % |
| 14 | Wabash National Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 15 | Columbus Mckinnon Corp | 471 | 9.57 % |
| 16 | Gencor Industries Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 17 | Aersale Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 18 | Hudson Technologies Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 19 | Phoenix Motor Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Columbus Mckinnon's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-09-28. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Columbus Mckinnon's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Construction & Mining Machinery industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (24 companies). See the full Construction & Mining Machinery industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 28.75 % | 21.59 % (avg) | +7.2 pp |
| Operating Margin | -9.57 % | industry median | -14.1 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | -7.33 % | 6.52 % (avg) | -13.8 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | - | 10.24 % (avg) | - |
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.
Columbus Mckinnon's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Construction & Mining Machinery industry average (24 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 Construction & Mining Machinery industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 27.8x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | - | 15.2x | - |
| P/B | 0.4x | 2.0x | -1.7x |
| Return on Equity | -27.40 % | industry aggregate | -56.51 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -3.58 % | -0.10 % (avg) | -3.48 % |
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.
Columbus Mckinnon's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 8.00 % | -4.27 % | -21.94 % | 28.57 % | 11.48 % | 6.99 % | -2.08 % | 2.14 % |
| Operating Margin | 7.02 % | 11.67 % | 6.85 % | 7.61 % | 10.09 % | 10.91 % | 7.66 % | 3.87 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 4.64 % | 7.36 % | 3.10 % | 3.27 % | 4.27 % | 4.54 % | 3.10 % | 1.62 % |
| P/E | 24.9x | 13.5x | 106.8x | 48.2x | 20.2x | 21.6x | 112.7x | 85.6x |
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.
Columbus Mckinnon's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Columbus Mckinnon's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Columbus Mckinnon is shown in red; its closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC (the Similar Growth & Profitability group above) are labeled.
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.
Columbus Mckinnon's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Columbus Mckinnon's largest competitor by market cap) against industry revenue growth, using the standard textbook thresholds (1.0x share, 10% growth) a common framework, not a precision instrument.
Columbus Mckinnon falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.00x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 8.9% (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. A caveat worth reading alongside this chart: Caterpillar Inc alone holds 89% of this industry's market cap. In an industry this dominated by one leader, the framework will place nearly every OTHER company in "Dog" or "Question Mark" purely because relative share is measured against that leader, regardless of how strong those other companies actually are on their own fundamentals. Check the Profitability, Valuation and Financial Strength sections above before treating this quadrant label as a verdict.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 | Low | Industry HHI of 7,968 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Columbus Mckinnon's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Columbus Mckinnon's dedicated customers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Threat of Substitutes | - | No systematic data source for cross-product substitution exists in this system; not estimated |
Note: this is a partial, data-grounded application of the framework, not a complete strategic assessment. Rivalry and barriers-to-entry readings are mechanical translations of the HHI and capital-intensity figures shown elsewhere on this page, not independent judgments.
Columbus Mckinnon's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
A CSIMarket composite, not a standard field: each axis is an equal-weighted average of three factors already shown elsewhere on this page (industry growth, industry profitability and rivalry for attractiveness; relative market share, profitability and growth vs industry for strength). Disclosed as a designed methodology, not a precision measurement.
Columbus Mckinnon falls in the Medium attractiveness / Medium strength cell: Selective.
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.
Columbus Mckinnon'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
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+42.7% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Operating margin 14.1 points below the industry median.
- Return on equity 56.5 points below the industry aggregate.
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.00x).
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- Industry dominated by Caterpillar Inc, holding 89.11 % of industry market cap.
Methodology: mechanical, rule-based SWOT. Each bullet reuses a figure already sourced and cited elsewhere on this page; nothing here is generated narrative or independent analyst judgment.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | 0.17 | 1.95 | 1.28 |
| Caterpillar Inc | 0.19 | 1.39 | 0.99 |
| 3m Company | - | 1.57 | 3.20 |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | 0.35 | 2.16 | 0.86 |
| Terex Corporation | 0.34 | 1.99 | 0.96 |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | 0.44 | 2.45 | 0.79 |
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
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.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | Q2 2026 | +125.8 % | - |
| Caterpillar Inc | Q2 2026 | +24.0 % | +64.9 % |
| 3m Company | Q2 2026 | +2.5 % | +29.4 % |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | Q2 2026 | +4.2 % | +46.7 % |
| Terex Corporation | Q2 2026 | +50.5 % | +52.8 % |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | Q2 2026 | +10.2 % | - |
| PEERS TOTAL | +18.4 % | +56.3 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | Q2 2026 | +143.8 % | +77.0 % |
| Caterpillar Inc | Q2 2026 | +18.3 % | +16.3 % |
| 3m Company | Q2 2026 | +4.7 % | +7.2 % |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | Q2 2026 | +1.7 % | -25.5 % |
| Terex Corporation | Q2 2026 | +52.2 % | - |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | Q2 2026 | +10.2 % | +30.2 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
Columbus Mckinnon's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | - | - | - |
| Caterpillar Inc | 11.11% | 17.90% | 54.18% |
| 3m Company | 8.27% | 11.16% | 76.55% |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | 2.35% | 2.37% | 4.75% |
| Terex Corporation | 1.82% | 2.03% | 4.30% |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | 3.47% | 3.72% | 7.11% |
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
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).
Columbus Mckinnon's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | - | 0.32 |
| Caterpillar Inc | 35.33 | 5.07 |
| 3m Company | 30.10 | 3.52 |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | 32.26 | 1.73 |
| Terex Corporation | 28.32 | 0.95 |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | 28.59 | 1.40 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 35.21 | 3.89 |
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
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.