Graham Holdings Co's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Graham Holdings Co (GHC) 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: Graham Holdings Co vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 4,982M vs 254,475M combined for tracked competitors (1.9% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is holding steady (-0.8% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs holding steady (+0.9%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Graham Holdings Co generated 6.0% revenue growth year over year in Q1 2026, vs 5.0% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 2.5% net margin compares with 7.5% for the peer group.
- Scale: Graham Holdings Co ranks #2 of 45 companies by market capitalization in the Educational Services industry, holding 12.1% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Graham Holdings Co accounted for 1.9% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 1.9% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.25M compares with $0.56M 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).
GHC Sales vs. its Competitors, Q1 2026
Graham Holdings Co reported revenue growth of 6.01 % year on year in Q1 2026, above its competitors' combined revenue growth of 4.96 %.
With a net margin of 2.49 %, Graham Holdings Co reported lower profitability than its competitors (7.54 %).
Graham Holdings Co generated 1.89 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 1.87 % a year earlier.
Graham Holdings Co vs. its Competitors, Q1 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 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 Graham Holdings Co and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Graham Holdings Co | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (5) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (6) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Graham Holdings Co's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Educational Services industry grew revenue 4.5% year over year, combined, vs 6.0% for Graham Holdings Co. Graham Holdings Co's share of combined industry revenue moved from 8.91% to 9.05%, a gain of 0.13 percentage points.
Graham Holdings Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graham Holdings Co | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Competitors combined (8) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (6) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 75.00 % (6 of 8) | 75.00 % (6 of 8) | 25.00 % (2 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.
GHC Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
GHC Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
GHC 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 | Sphere Entertainment Co | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | The E w Scripps Company | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Fox Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Walt Disney Co | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | News Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Graham Holdings Co's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Graham Holdings Co's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Kaplan’s businesses operate in fragmented and competitive markets. KHE competes with both facilities-based and other distance-learning providers of similar educational services, including not-for-profit colleges and universities and for-profit businesses. PACE competes in each of its professional lines with other companies that provide preparation for exams required for professional licenses, certifications and designations. KTP competes with a variety of regional and national test preparation businesses, with individual tutors and with in-school preparation for standardized tests. Overseas, each of Kaplan’s businesses competes with other for-profit companies and, in certain instances, with government-supported schools and institutions that provide similar training and educational programs. Students choose among providers based on program offerings, convenience, quality of instruction, reputation, placement rates, student services and cost.
Cable systems operate in a highly competitive environment. In addition to competing with over-the-air reception, cable systems face competition from various other forms of video program delivery systems, including DBS services, telephone companies and the Internet. Certain of the Company’s cable systems also have been partially or substantially overbuilt, using conventional cable system technology, by various small to mid-sized independent telephone companies that typically offer Internet and telephone service, as well as basic cable service. Local telephone companies compete with cable systems in the delivery of high-speed Internet access by providing DSL service. In addition, on their own or via strategic partnerships with DBS operators that permit telephone companies to package the video programming services of DBS operators with telephone companies’ own DSL service, some telephone companies are competing with the video programming and Internet services being offered by existing cable systems. Satellite-delivered broadband and high-powered WiMAX services will increasingly provide competition to Cable ONE. Video programming, including broadcast programming, is becoming more available on the Internet, where viewers can watch programming for free, as well as access pay-per-view offerings. Cable ONE distinguishes itself from its competition by providing excellent local customer service and consistently attaining very high levels of customer satisfaction.
PNS competes for audiences and advertising revenues with television and radio
stations, cable systems and video services offered by telephone companies serving
the same or nearby areas; with DBS services; and, to a lesser degree, with other
media, such as newspapers and magazines. Cable systems operate in substantially
all of the areas served by the Company’s television stations, where they
compete for television viewers by importing out-of-market television signals;
by distributing pay-cable, advertiser-supported and other programming that is
originated for cable systems; and by offering movies and other programming on
a pay-per-view basis. In addition, DBS services provide nationwide distribution
of television programming, including pay-per-view programming and programming
packages unique to DBS, using digital transmission technologies. The Company’s
television stations may also become subject to increased competition from low-power
television stations, wireless cable services and satellite master antenna systems,
which can carry pay-cable and similar program material. In addition, movies
and television programming are available free of charge on the websites of the
major TV networks, as well as on the advertising-supported website Hulu.
The home health and hospice industries are extremely competitive and fragmented,
consisting of both for-profit and non-profit companies. Celtic competes primarily
with privately owned and hospital-operated home health and hospice service providers.
Publicly Traded Peers of Graham Holdings Co
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Graham Holdings Co | 4,987.54 | 4,981.64 |
| Walt Disney Co | 184,235.10 | 98,861.00 |
| Comcast corporation | 77,790.30 | 124,904.00 |
| Fox Corporation | 27,241.92 | 16,201.00 |
| News Corporation | 16,249.44 | 9,028.00 |
| Sphere Entertainment Co | 5,014.73 | 1,356.84 |
| SUBTOTAL | 319,984.74 | 259,456.41 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Graham Holdings Co.
Sources: Graham Holdings Co'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 Graham Holdings Co versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Graham Holdings Co'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 |
|---|---|
| Graham Holdings Co | Reportable Segment, Aggregation before Other Operating 93.37 % |
| Comcast corporation | Residential Connectivity and Platforms 57.19 % |
| Fox Corporation | Television 55.01 % |
| News Corporation | Dow Jones 27.66 % |
| Sphere Entertainment Co | Sphere Entertainment 68.83 % |
| Covista inc | Chamberlain University Segment 40.44 % |
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).
Graham Holdings Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graham Holdings Co | 4,988 | 250,082 | 15,477 |
| Walt Disney Co | 184,235 | 427,970 | 39,983 |
| Comcast corporation | 77,790 | 697,788 | 60,145 |
| Fox Corporation | 27,242 | 1,535,640 | 165,877 |
| News Corporation | 16,249 | 416,037 | 34,240 |
| Sphere Entertainment Co | 5,015 | 411,165 | -23,284 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 314,997 | 564,636 | 47,747 |
Graham Holdings Co'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 |
|---|---|
| News Corporation | United States and Canada 48.38 % |
| Covista inc | Domestic Operations 78.75 % |
| Tandy Leather Factory Inc | US 91.79 % |
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.
Graham Holdings Co's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 41 companies in Graham Holdings Co's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Graham Holdings Co ranks #2 of 41 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 12.14 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 777, indicating a unconcentrated 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 | Laureate Education Inc | 5,193 | 12.72 % |
| 2 | Graham Holdings Co | 4,957 | 12.14 % |
| 3 | Covista inc | 4,213 | 10.32 % |
| 4 | Grand Canyon Education inc | 3,816 | 9.35 % |
| 5 | Stride Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Lixiang Education Holding Co Ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Tal Education Group | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Perdoceo Education Corp | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | 17 Education and Technology Group Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Youdao Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Graham Holdings Co'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.
Graham Holdings Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Laureate Education Inc | 5,193 | 21.20 % |
| 2 | Graham Holdings Co | 4,957 | -0.92 % |
| 3 | Covista inc | 4,213 | -20.24 % |
| 4 | Grand Canyon Education inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 5 | Stride Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 6 | Lixiang Education Holding Co Ltd | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 7 | Tal Education Group | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Graham Holdings Co'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.
Graham Holdings Co's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Educational Services industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (44 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 68.30 % | 49.04 % (avg) | +19.3 pp |
| Operating Margin | 4.92 % | industry median | -1.4 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 9.80 % | -0.18 % (avg) | +10.0 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 1.52 % | 1.94 % (avg) | -0.4 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.
Graham Holdings Co's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Educational Services industry average (44 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 | 16.3x | 14.6x | +1.7x |
| EV / EBITDA | 11.0x | 12.4x | -1.4x |
| P/B | 1.0x | 3.0x | -2.0x |
| Return on Equity | 6.68 % | industry aggregate | -5.67 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 2.05 % | -0.82 % (avg) | 2.87 % |
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.
Graham Holdings Co'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 | - | - | -1.47 % | 10.27 % | 23.18 % | 12.50 % | 8.52 % | 2.52 % |
| Operating Margin | - | 4.93 % | 3.48 % | 2.43 % | 2.14 % | 1.57 % | 4.50 % | 4.78 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 3.60 % | 1.81 % | 1.07 % | 0.76 % | 0.77 % | 0.70 % | 1.98 % | 2.01 % |
| P/E | 13.0x | 10.2x | 8.1x | 8.5x | 46.0x | 14.4x | 5.4x | 16.1x |
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.
Graham Holdings Co's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Graham Holdings Co's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Graham Holdings Co 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.
Graham Holdings Co's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Graham Holdings Co'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.
Graham Holdings Co falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.95x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 3.5% (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.
Graham Holdings Co'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 | High | Industry HHI of 777 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | Lower than typical for the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 1.52 % vs industry average 1.94 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Graham Holdings Co's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Graham Holdings Co'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.
Graham Holdings Co'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.
Graham Holdings Co 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.
Graham Holdings Co'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
No rule matched.
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 5.7 points below the industry aggregate.
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
No rule matched.
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.
Graham Holdings Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graham Holdings Co | 0.17 | 1.51 | 0.18 |
| Walt Disney Co | 0.16 | 0.70 | 0.38 |
| Comcast corporation | 0.27 | 0.86 | 1.27 |
| Fox Corporation | - | 2.95 | 0.57 |
| News Corporation | 0.84 | 1.73 | 0.21 |
| Sphere Entertainment Co | 0.20 | 1.12 | 0.37 |
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.
Graham Holdings Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graham Holdings Co | Q1 2026 | +6.0 % | +19.6 % |
| Walt Disney Co | Q2 2026 | +6.8 % | -52.1 % |
| Comcast corporation | Q2 2026 | -1.2 % | -69.0 % |
| Fox Corporation | Q1 2026 | -8.6 % | -50.6 % |
| News Corporation | Q2 2026 | +10.8 % | -70.4 % |
| Sphere Entertainment Co | Q2 2026 | +11.0 % | - |
| PEERS TOTAL | +1.9 % | -69.5 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Graham Holdings Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graham Holdings Co | Q1 2026 | +2.3 % | +23.8 % |
| Walt Disney Co | Q2 2026 | - | +0.8 % |
| Comcast corporation | Q2 2026 | - | +5.3 % |
| Fox Corporation | Q1 2026 | - | +82.4 % |
| News Corporation | Q2 2026 | - | -7.0 % |
| Sphere Entertainment Co | Q2 2026 | +15.0 % | -1.2 % |
Graham Holdings Co's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graham Holdings Co | 3.85% | 4.19% | 6.68% |
| Walt Disney Co | 4.59% | 5.45% | 8.01% |
| Comcast corporation | 4.05% | 5.22% | 11.56% |
| Fox Corporation | 7.85% | 9.53% | 15.06% |
| News Corporation | 4.80% | 5.52% | 7.99% |
| Sphere Entertainment Co | - | - | - |
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).
Graham Holdings Co's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Graham Holdings Co | 16.86 | 1.00 |
| Walt Disney Co | 21.79 | 1.86 |
| Comcast corporation | 7.23 | 0.62 |
| Fox Corporation | 16.68 | 1.68 |
| News Corporation | 28.53 | 1.80 |
| Sphere Entertainment Co | - | 3.70 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 14.66 | 1.23 |
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.