Flowserve's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Flowserve (FLS) 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: Flowserve vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 4,697M vs 291,664M combined for its competitors (1.6% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+5.4% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs holding steady (+1.3%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Flowserve generated 5.4% revenue growth year over year in Q3 2026, vs 2.5% for its competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 8.3% net margin compares with 11.0% for the peer group.
- Scale: Flowserve ranks #12 of 37 companies by market capitalization in the Miscellaneous Manufacturing industry, holding 2.1% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Flowserve accounted for 1.7% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 1.6% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.29M compares with $0.49M for the peer group (0.6x).
- Structure: Flowserve operates in the following segments: FCD, FPD.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
FLS Sales vs. its Competitors, Q3 2026
Flowserve reported revenue growth of 5.41 % year on year in Q3 2026, above its competitors' combined revenue growth of 2.52 %.
With a net margin of 8.32 %, Flowserve reported lower profitability than its competitors (10.96 %).
Flowserve generated 1.65 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 1.60 % a year earlier.
API endpoints for this dataset
Flowserve vs. its Competitors, Q3 2026
Revenue growth, year on year
Net income 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 Flowserve 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 Flowserve and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Flowserve Corp | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (6) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (5) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Flowserve's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Miscellaneous Manufacturing industry grew revenue 10.2% year over year, combined, vs 5.4% for Flowserve. Flowserve's share of combined industry revenue moved from 1.66% to 1.59%, a loss of 0.07 percentage points.
Flowserve's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flowserve Corp | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Competitors combined (43) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (9) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 50.00 % (4 of 8) | 12.50 % (1 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.
FLS Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
FLS Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
FLS Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
FLS 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 Gorman rupp Company | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Slb Limited | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Idex Corp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Watts Water Technologies Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Tetra Tech inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Flowserve's best-performing competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Flowserve's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
The industrial pump industry is highly fragmented, with many competitors. We
compete, however, primarily with a limited number of large companies operating
on a global scale. Competition among our closest competitors is generally driven
by delivery times, expertise, price, breadth of product offerings, contractual
terms, previous installation history and reputation for quality. Some of our
largest industry competitors include ITT Industries, KSB Inc. and Sulzer Pumps.
We believe that our strongest sources of competitive advantage rest with our
extensive range of pumps for the chemical industry, our large installed base,
our strong customer relationships, our more than 200 years of legacy experience
in manufacturing and servicing pumping equipment and our reputation for providing
quality engineering solutions.
While in recent years the valve market has undergone a significant amount of
consolidation, the market remains highly fragmented. Some of the largest valve
industry competitors include Pentair Ltd., Cameron International Corp., Emerson
Electric Co., General Electric Co. and Crane Co.
Our market research and assessments indicate that the top 10 global valve manufacturers
collectively comprise less than 25% of the total valve market. Based on independent
industry sources, we believe that we are the fourth largest industrial valve
supplier in the world. We believe that our strongest sources of competitive
advantage rest with our comprehensive portfolio of valve products and services,
our focus on execution and our expertise in severe corrosion and erosion applications.
The pump and mechanical seal industry is highly fragmented, with hundreds of
competitors. We compete, however, primarily with a limited number of large companies
operating on a global scale. Competition among our closest competitors is generally
driven by delivery times, expertise, price, breadth of product offerings, contractual
terms, previous installation history and reputation for quality. Some of our
largest industry competitors include: Sulzer Pumps; Ebara Corp.; SPX Corp.;
Eagle Burgmann, which is a joint venture of two traditional global seal manufacturers,
A. W. Chesterton Co. and AES Corp.; John Crane Inc., a unit of Smiths Group
Plc; and Weir Group Plc.
The pump and mechanical seal industry continues to undergo considerable consolidation,
which is primarily driven by (i) the need to lower costs through reduction of
excess capacity and (ii) customers’ preference to align with global full
service suppliers to simplify their supplier base. Despite the consolidation
activity, the market remains highly competitive.
We believe that our strongest sources of competitive advantage rest with our
extensive range of pumps for the oil and gas, chemical and power generation
industries, our large installed base of products, our strong customer relationships,
our more than 200 years of legacy experience in manufacturing and servicing
pumping equipment, our reputation for providing quality engineering solutions
and our ability to deliver engineered new seal product orders within 72 hours
from the customer’s request.
Publicly Traded Peers of Flowserve Corp
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Flowserve Corp |
9,986.15 | 4,697.02 |
 Danaher Corporation |
159,977.11 | 25,608.00 |
 Eaton Corporation Plc |
127,406.99 | 31,984.00 |
 Parker hannifin Corporation |
114,302.35 | 21,499.00 |
 Emerson Electric Co |
91,240.47 | 18,637.00 |
 Johnson Controls International Plc |
80,716.44 | 24,433.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 1,160,924.39 | 805,553.58 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Flowserve Corp.
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Flowserve Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Flowserve's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Flowserve reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Ingersoll Rand Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Baker Hughes Company | Company report | 85% |
| Energy Recovery Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Emerson Electric Co | Company report | 85% |
| Itt Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Crane Co | Company report | 85% |
| Cameron International Corp | Company report | 85% |
| KSB SE | Company report | 85% |
| Smiths Group | Company report | 85% |
| Rotork plc | Company report | 85% |
| Ebara Corp | Company report | 85% |
| Circor International Inc | Company report | 85% |
| ITT Industries | Company report | 85% |
| Weir Group | Company report | 85% |
| John Crane Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Kmg Chemicals Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Slb Limited | Company report | 85% |
| Idex Corp | Company report | 85% |
| Enpro Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Mueller Water Products Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Dover Corp | Company report | 85% |
| Pentair Plc | Company report | 85% |
| Xylem Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Honeywell International Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Eaton Corporation Plc | Company report | 85% |
| Watts Water Technologies Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Parker hannifin Corporation | Company report | 85% |
| Graco Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Badger Meter Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Roper Technologies Inc | Company report | 85% |
| The Gorman rupp Company | Company report | 85% |
| Franklin Electric Co Inc | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Flowserve's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Flowserve'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 |
|---|---|
| Flowserve Corp | FCD 0.21 % |
| Danaher Corporation | Diagnostics 43.97 % |
| Eaton Corporation Plc | Electrical Americas 46.63 % |
| Parker hannifin Corporation | Diversified Industrial 66.93 % |
| Emerson Electric Co | Safety and Productivity 11.33 % |
| Johnson Controls International Plc | Americas 66.79 % |
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).
Flowserve'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flowserve Corp | 9,986 | 293,564 | 16,828 |
| Danaher Corporation | 159,977 | 426,800 | 72,183 |
| Eaton Corporation Plc | 127,407 | 328,705 | 40,102 |
| Parker hannifin Corporation | 114,302 | 359,215 | 60,969 |
| Emerson Electric Co | 91,240 | 255,301 | 35,329 |
| Johnson Controls International Plc | 80,716 | 108,591 | 16,342 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 1,150,938 | 488,672 | 85,850 |
Flowserve'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 |
|---|---|
| Flowserve Corp | North America 43.91 % |
| Danaher Corporation | North America 41.81 % |
| Parker hannifin Corporation | North America 67.21 % |
| Slb Limited | Middle East 29.71 % |
| Ingersoll Rand Inc | United States 41.13 % |
| Dover Corp | United States 56.96 % |
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.
Flowserve's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 34 companies in Flowserve's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Flowserve ranks #12 of 34 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 2.08 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,544, indicating a moderately concentrated market structure (see Methodology: Market Structure & Concentration).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Abb Ltd | 152,123 | 31.59 % |
| 2 | Trane Technologies Plc | 87,316 | 18.13 % |
| 3 | Ferguson Enterprises Inc | 45,716 | 9.49 % |
| 4 | Xylem Inc | 23,669 | 4.92 % |
| 5 | Amcor Plc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Snap on Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Itt Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Stanley Black and Decker Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Idex Corp | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Watsco Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 12 | Flowserve Corp | 10,017 | 2.08 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Flowserve's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-11-05.
Flowserve'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Itt Inc | 17,594 | 11.09 % |
| 8 | Stanley Black and Decker Inc | 17,365 | 68.83 % |
| 9 | Idex Corp | 16,517 | 39.32 % |
| 10 | Watsco Inc | 11,883 | -10.51 % |
| 11 | Graco Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 12 | Flowserve Corp | 10,017 | 13.99 % |
| 13 | Advanced Drainage Systems Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 14 | Littelfuse Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 15 | Simpson Manufacturing Co inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 16 | Powell Industries Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 17 | Thor Industries Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Flowserve's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-11-05. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Flowserve's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Miscellaneous Manufacturing industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (53 companies). See the full Miscellaneous Manufacturing industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 34.15 % | 25.61 % (avg) | +8.5 pp |
| Operating Margin | 9.96 % | industry median | -6.2 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 6.11 % | 4.04 % (avg) | +2.1 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 1.63 % | 6.56 % (avg) | -4.9 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.
Flowserve's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Miscellaneous Manufacturing industry average (53 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 Miscellaneous Manufacturing industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | 37.5x | 25.5x | +12.0x |
| EV / EBITDA | 41.7x | 16.0x | +25.7x |
| P/B | 4.2x | 3.0x | +1.2x |
| Return on Equity | 11.65 % | industry aggregate | -5.75 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 6.15 % | 0.19 % (avg) | 5.96 % |
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.
Flowserve'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 | 4.69 % | - | - | -5.02 % | 2.09 % | 19.49 % | 5.50 % | 3.76 % |
| Operating Margin | 6.46 % | - | 6.71 % | 7.65 % | 5.46 % | 7.72 % | 10.14 % | 8.46 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 4.69 % | - | 4.44 % | 4.91 % | 3.89 % | 6.53 % | 8.59 % | 6.65 % |
| P/E | 49.5x | - | - | 33.0x | 22.0x | 27.2x | 26.8x | 24.4x |
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.
Flowserve's Strategic Group Map
Flowserve 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.
Flowserve's trailing-12-month revenue growth of 0.2% and operating margin of 10.0% compares with an average of -0.2% growth and 9.6% margin across its 8 closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC -- Flowserve sits above that peer average on growth and above 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.
Flowserve's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
See Methodology: BCG Growth-Share Matrix for how relative share and growth are calculated and thresholded.
Flowserve falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.07x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 2.9% (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.
Flowserve'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 1,544 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | Lower than typical for the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 1.63 % vs industry average 6.56 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Flowserve's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Flowserve's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Flowserve falls in the Low attractiveness / Medium 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.
Flowserve'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 (+5.4% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Outperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
Weaknesses
- Operating margin 6.2 points below the industry median.
- Return on equity 5.8 points below the industry aggregate.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.07x).
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
No rule matched.
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Flowserve'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flowserve Corp | 0.38 | 2.12 | 1.26 |
| Danaher Corporation | - | 1.75 | 0.45 |
| Eaton Corporation Plc | 0.05 | 1.24 | 0.89 |
| Parker hannifin Corporation | 0.08 | 1.16 | 0.65 |
| Emerson Electric Co | 0.05 | 0.88 | 0.65 |
| Johnson Controls International Plc | 0.05 | 0.96 | 0.70 |
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.
Flowserve'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flowserve Corp | Q3 2026 | +5.4 % | -54.0 % |
| Danaher Corporation | Q3 2026 | +8.3 % | +36.0 % |
| Eaton Corporation Plc | Q3 2026 | +28.0 % | +6.7 % |
| Parker hannifin Corporation | Q2 2026 | +9.8 % | +18.2 % |
| Emerson Electric Co | Q2 2026 | +7.0 % | +22.5 % |
| Johnson Controls International Plc | Q1 2026 | +8.2 % | +17.1 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +9.9 % | +69.6 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Flowserve'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flowserve Corp | Q3 2026 | +3.7 % | +0.3 % |
| Danaher Corporation | Q3 2026 | +7.4 % | -12.7 % |
| Eaton Corporation Plc | Q3 2026 | +35.5 % | +54.5 % |
| Parker hannifin Corporation | Q2 2026 | +6.8 % | +32.2 % |
| Emerson Electric Co | Q2 2026 | +2.7 % | +9.7 % |
| Johnson Controls International Plc | Q1 2026 | +7.6 % | - |
Flowserve's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flowserve Corp | 4.47% | 5.09% | 11.65% |
| Danaher Corporation | 4.91% | 5.57% | 8.18% |
| Eaton Corporation Plc | 7.43% | 9.80% | 19.38% |
| Parker hannifin Corporation | 11.99% | 15.10% | 25.38% |
| Emerson Electric Co | 6.13% | 8.71% | 12.69% |
| Johnson Controls International Plc | 9.33% | 15.77% | 26.03% |
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).
Flowserve's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Flowserve Corp | 39.02 | 2.13 |
| Danaher Corporation | 37.10 | 6.25 |
| Eaton Corporation Plc | 32.73 | 3.98 |
| Parker hannifin Corporation | 31.34 | 5.32 |
| Emerson Electric Co | 35.58 | 4.90 |
| Johnson Controls International Plc | 23.86 | 3.30 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 8.24 | 1.44 |
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.