Chesapeake Utilities's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Chesapeake Utilities (CPK) 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: Chesapeake Utilities vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 994M vs -M combined for tracked competitors (100.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-18.7% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Scale: Chesapeake Utilities ranks #32 of 49 companies by market capitalization in the Natural Gas Utilities industry, holding 0.3% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Chesapeake Utilities accounted for 100.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 100.0% a year earlier.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
CPK Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Chesapeake Utilities generated 100.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 100.00 % a year earlier.
For context: the Natural Gas Utilities industry grew revenue 24.5% year over year, combined, vs 4.7% for Chesapeake Utilities. Chesapeake Utilities's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.08% to 0.07%, a loss of 0.01 percentage points.
Chesapeake Utilities'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chesapeake Utilities Corp | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| High-Confidence Competitors (2) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 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.
CPK Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
CPK Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
CPK Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
CPK Stock Performance relative to Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors
Chesapeake Utilities's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Our natural gas and electric distribution operations and our natural gas transmission
operations compete with other forms of energy, including oil, propane and other
sources of energy. The principal competitive factors are price and, to a lesser
extent, accessibility. Our natural gas distribution operations have several
large industrial customers that are able to use fuel oil or propane as an alternative
to natural gas. When oil or propane prices decline, these interruptible customers
may convert to an alternative fuel source to satisfy their fuel requirements
and our sales volumes may decline. To address the uncertainty of alternative
fuel prices, we use flexible pricing arrangements on both the supply and sales
sides of our business to compete with alternative fuel price fluctuations.
Large industrial natural gas customers may be able to bypass our distribution
and transmission systems and make direct connections with “upstream”
interstate transmission pipelines when such connections are economically feasible.
Certain large industrial electric customers may be capable of generating electricity
for their own consumption. Although the risk of bypassing our systems is not
considered significant, we may adjust services and rates for these customers
to retain their business in certain situations.
Chesapeake Utilities's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| EXEEW | Named by the company | 85% |
| Coda Octopus Group Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Expand Energy Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Chesapeake Utilities'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.
Chesapeake Utilities'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 |
|---|---|
| Chesapeake Utilities Corp | Regulated Energy 70.43 % |
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).