Competition & Peer Data API & CSV Delivery Connect to AI Assistant via MCP

Cyberoptics's Competitiveness

A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Cyberoptics (CYBE) 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.

Peer Data As of Q2 2022
Competitors Tracked
-
Publicly traded peers
Peer Group Market Share
100.00 %
vs 100.00 % a year ago
Revenue Growth Y/Y
9.38 %
Q2 2022
Net Margin
15.92 %
Q2 2022

Key Findings: Cyberoptics vs Its Competitors

  • TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 102M vs -M combined for tracked competitors (100.0% combined share).
  • Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+8.5% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
  • Peer revenue share: Cyberoptics 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).

CYBE Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2022

Cyberoptics generated 100.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 100.00 % a year earlier.

API endpoints for this dataset
https://api.csimarket.com/api/v1/companies/CYBE/competitors
https://api.csimarket.com/api/v1/companies/CYBE/relationships
https://api.csimarket.com/api/v1/companies/CYBE/similar
Programmatic access for models, analytics, and integration workflows.

For context: the Scientific & Technical Instruments industry grew revenue 12.8% year over year, combined, vs 9.4% for Cyberoptics. Cyberoptics's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.11% to 0.11%, a gain of 0.00 percentage points.

Cyberoptics'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
Cyberoptics Corp Yes Yes Yes No
High-Confidence Competitors (1) 100% 100% 100% 0%
Similar Growth & Profitability (8) 87.50 % (7 of 8) 100.00 % (8 of 8) 87.50 % (7 of 8) 25.00 % (2 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.

Market Share of the Peer Group, Q2 2022

100%market share
  • Cyberoptics100.0%
  • Competitors combined0.0%

Share of combined quarterly revenue of Cyberoptics and its 0 tracked competitors.

See Cyberoptics's full market share breakdown »

CYBE Stock Performance relative to its Competitors

CYBE Competitors (weighted) Percent change over the selected range

Cyberoptics's Share Price Performance vs Peer Groups

Trailing 12-month total share price return, and the share of each group that outperformed the U.S.A. 500 over the same period. Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors are the closest peers by combined revenue growth, operating margin and ROIC.
100%beat U.S.A. 500
High-Confidence
(1 of 1)
71.4%beat U.S.A. 500
Similar Growth & Profitability
(5 of 7)
Entity TTM Share Price Return
(group: median)
vs U.S.A. 500
Cyberoptics Corp - -
Competitors combined (0) 40.4% 63.2%
High-Confidence Competitors (1) 40.4% 63.2%
Similar-Size Competitors (0) 40.4% 63.2%
Similar Growth & Profitability (7) 40.4% 63.2%
Peer Group Share Price Returns

TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Cyberoptics's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.

Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation). Outperformance is trailing-12-month total return vs the U.S.A. 500 over the same window, not risk-adjusted.

CYBE Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors

CYBE High-Confidence Competitors (equal-weighted, 1) Percent change over the selected range

CYBE Stock Performance relative to Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors

CYBE Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors (equal-weighted, 8) Percent change over the selected range

Cyberoptics's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers

We face competition from a number of companies in the machine vision, image processing and inspection systems market, some of which are larger and have greater financial resources.


Our 3D and 2D optical sensors and SMT electronic assembly alignment sensors primarily compete with the sensors and vision systems developed by OEMs using their own design staff for incorporation into their products. We believe our high precision 3D sensors based on our MRS technology are unique in the marketplace based on the ability to offer microscopic quality images at fast production line speeds. Our 2D SIM sensors and SMT electronic assembly alignment sensor products also compete with vision (camera and software based) systems and component libraries available from Cognex Corporation and others. Although advances in vision systems have reduced some of the advantages of our SMT electronic assembly alignment sensor products in some configurations, we continue to believe that our sensors compete favorably based on our ability to custom design products with stringent physical form requirements, speed, flexibility, low cost and ease of use.


The primary competition for sales of our SPI and AOI systems has been from Korean based companies, including Koh Young Technology, MirTec Ltd., and Parmi (SPI). We also compete with Taiwanese based Test Research, Inc. and German based Viscom, among others. Sales of AOI systems account for roughly two-thirds of the approximate $500 million total SPI/AOI inspection systems market, with 3D AOI representing the fastest growing segment of this market. We believe our 2D SIM and 3D MRS sensor technology and the Ai2 software used in our QX and SQ family of products is differentiated from the competition and that these products compete effectively in the AOI market based on cost, ease of use at rapid production line speeds and the low rate of false calls. We believe that our new SQ3000 3D AOI offering, enabled by our proprietary MRS technology and 3D fusing algorithms, is differentiated and will allow us to gain market share based on our ability to offer microscopic quality images at production line speeds.

The approximate $1.0 billion plus market for 3D scanning solutions and services is highly fragmented. The primary competition for our 3D scanning solutions include CMM based products from Zeiss and others, articulated robotic arm products from Faro and assorted other 3D measurement technologies offering varying combinations of speed and accuracy. The market for 3D scanning services is dominated by small regional market participants. We believe the unique performance characteristics of MRS that inhibit reflections, particularly critical for shiny objects, and enable extremely accurate measurements at high speeds, will give CyberGage360 a competitive advantage in the portion of the market that prioritizes these performance characteristics.


We believe our WaferSense and ReticleSense products are unique to the marketplace and primarily face competition from the manual techniques currently used by most customers to monitor their semiconductor fabrication equipment. Because the user is not required to break down semiconductor fabrication equipment, or pressurize a vacuum chamber, we believe that our WaferSense/ReticleSense products save significant time and increase measurement accuracy over the manual techniques currently used by customers and that these products improve tool up-time, through-put and process yield.


We believe our current and planned products offer advantages in terms of price and suitability for specific applications. Although we have attempted to protect the proprietary nature of such products, it is possible that any of our products could be duplicated by other companies in the same general markets in which we participate.

Cyberoptics's Competitors Named by the Company

Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.
Competitor Basis Confidence Active Sources
MirTec Ltd Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
Cognex Corporation Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
Koh Young Technology Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
Competitor Evidence Detail

Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Cyberoptics'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.

Get the full CSIMarket dataset: Subscribe API License