Canterbury Park Holding's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Canterbury Park Holding (CPHC) 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: Canterbury Park Holding vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 60M vs 7,090M combined for tracked competitors (0.8% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+7.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+13.6%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Canterbury Park Holding generated 3.2% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 2.3% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its -0.9% net margin compares with 18.5% for the peer group.
- Scale: Canterbury Park Holding ranks #23 of 49 companies by market capitalization in the Movies and Entertainment industry, holding 0.1% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Canterbury Park Holding accounted for 0.8% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 0.8% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.08M compares with $0.28M for the peer group (0.3x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
CPHC Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Canterbury Park Holding reported revenue growth of 3.20 % year on year in Q2 2026, above its competitors' combined revenue growth of 2.34 %.
With a net margin of -0.92 %, Canterbury Park Holding reported lower profitability than its competitors (18.46 %).
Canterbury Park Holding generated 0.80 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 0.79 % a year earlier.
Canterbury Park Holding 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 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 Canterbury Park Holding and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Canterbury Park Holding Corp | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (9) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (7) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Canterbury Park Holding's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Movies and Entertainment industry grew revenue 15.2% year over year, combined, vs 3.2% for Canterbury Park Holding. Canterbury Park Holding's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.08% to 0.07%, a loss of 0.01 percentage points.
Canterbury Park Holding'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canterbury Park Holding Corp | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Competitors combined (2) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (9) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 50.00 % (4 of 8) | 62.50 % (5 of 8) | 37.50 % (3 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.
CPHC Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
CPHC Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
CPHC 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 | Boyd Gaming Corp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Churchill Downs Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Canterbury Park Holding's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Canterbury Park Holding's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of Canterbury Park Holding Corp
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Canterbury Park Holding Corp | 81.10 | 60.44 |
| Churchill Downs Inc | 5,300.40 | 2,991.90 |
| Boyd Gaming Corp | 5,176.59 | 4,098.17 |
| SUBTOTAL | 10,558.09 | 7,150.50 |
Sources: Canterbury Park Holding 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 Canterbury Park Holding Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Canterbury Park Holding'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 |
|---|---|
| Canterbury Park Holding Corp | Card Casino 68.40 % |
| Churchill Downs Inc | Live and Historical Racing 58.67 % |
| Boyd Gaming Corp | Midwest and South 52.65 % |
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).
Canterbury Park Holding'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canterbury Park Holding Corp | 81 | 81,015 | 160 |
| Churchill Downs Inc | 5,300 | 332,433 | 46,189 |
| Boyd Gaming Corp | 5,177 | 255,991 | 113,179 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 10,477 | 283,501 | 89,071 |
Canterbury Park Holding's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 40 companies in Canterbury Park Holding's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Canterbury Park Holding ranks #23 of 40 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.07 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,896, indicating a moderately 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 | Live Nation Entertainment Inc | 41,967 | 38.45 % |
| 2 | Tko Group Holdings Inc | 16,299 | 14.93 % |
| 3 | Liberty Live Holdings inc | 9,064 | 8.30 % |
| 4 | Churchill Downs Inc | 5,531 | 5.07 % |
| 5 | Sphere Entertainment Co | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Cinemark Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Warner Music Group Corp | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Atlanta Braves Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Manchester United Plc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Lionsgate Studios Corp | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 23 | Canterbury Park Holding Corp | 81 | 0.07 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Canterbury Park Holding's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-09-25.
Canterbury Park Holding'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 | Buuu Group Limited | 661 | 431.69 % |
| 19 | Reservoir Media inc | 624 | 19.65 % |
| 20 | Gamesquare Holdings Inc | 298 | 362.50 % |
| 21 | Curiositystream Inc | 181 | -42.20 % |
| 22 | Venu Holding Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 23 | Canterbury Park Holding Corp | 81 | -5.27 % |
| 24 | International Media Acquisition Corp | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 25 | High Roller Technologies Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 26 | Reading International Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 27 | Galaxy Gaming Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 28 | Kartoon Studios Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Canterbury Park Holding'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.
Canterbury Park Holding's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Movies and Entertainment industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (38 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | - | 53.27 % (avg) | - |
| Operating Margin | 4.50 % | industry median | +3.3 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 7.32 % | 2.72 % (avg) | +4.6 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 5.74 % | 6.27 % (avg) | -0.5 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.
Canterbury Park Holding's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Movies and Entertainment industry average (38 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.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | 649.9x | 43.6x | +606.2x |
| EV / EBITDA | 13.4x | 17.9x | -4.5x |
| P/B | 1.0x | 3.9x | -2.9x |
| Return on Equity | 0.14 % | industry aggregate | 5.56 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 1.46 % | 5.94 % (avg) | -4.48 % |
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.
Canterbury Park Holding'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 | 3.84 % | 0.14 % | -44.05 % | 82.25 % | 10.64 % | -8.06 % | 0.20 % | -3.24 % |
| Operating Margin | 12.93 % | 6.14 % | 1.89 % | 29.44 % | 16.30 % | 18.72 % | 10.45 % | 4.13 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 8.37 % | 3.60 % | 0.59 % | 14.58 % | 7.41 % | 6.84 % | 3.54 % | 1.33 % |
| P/E | 12.0x | 21.2x | 56.7x | 7.1x | 18.2x | 9.5x | 48.9x | - |
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.
Canterbury Park Holding's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Canterbury Park Holding's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Canterbury Park Holding 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.
Canterbury Park Holding's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Canterbury Park Holding'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.
Canterbury Park Holding falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.00x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 5.1% (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: Live Nation Entertainment Inc alone holds 38% 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.
Canterbury Park Holding'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 1,896 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | Moderate, in line with the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 5.74 % vs industry average 6.27 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Canterbury Park Holding's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Canterbury Park Holding'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.
Canterbury Park Holding'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.
Canterbury Park Holding 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.
Canterbury Park Holding'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
- Return on equity 5.6 points above the industry aggregate.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+7.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- 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 Live Nation Entertainment Inc , holding 38.45 % 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.
Canterbury Park Holding'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canterbury Park Holding Corp | 1.48 | 2.32 | - |
| Churchill Downs Inc | 0.31 | 0.49 | 3.08 |
| Boyd Gaming Corp | 0.40 | 0.59 | 0.86 |
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.
Canterbury Park Holding'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canterbury Park Holding Corp | Q2 2026 | +3.2 % | - |
| Churchill Downs Inc | Q2 2026 | +4.9 % | +11.2 % |
| Boyd Gaming Corp | Q2 2026 | +0.0 % | -13.6 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +2.3 % | +1.1 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Canterbury Park Holding'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canterbury Park Holding Corp | Q2 2026 | - | -42.0 % |
| Churchill Downs Inc | Q2 2026 | +119.1 % | -31.5 % |
| Boyd Gaming Corp | Q2 2026 | +98.1 % | -14.4 % |
Canterbury Park Holding's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canterbury Park Holding Corp | 0.10% | 0.12% | 0.14% |
| Churchill Downs Inc | 5.55% | 5.80% | 37.10% |
| Boyd Gaming Corp | 27.47% | 32.47% | 70.29% |
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).
Canterbury Park Holding's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Canterbury Park Holding Corp | 646.51 | 1.34 |
| Churchill Downs Inc | 13.03 | 1.77 |
| Boyd Gaming Corp | 3.05 | 1.26 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 4.74 | 1.48 |
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.