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

Ion Geophysical's Competitiveness

A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Ion Geophysical (IO) 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 Q3 2021
Competitors Tracked
4
Publicly traded peers
Peer Group Market Share
0.68 %
vs 0.30 % a year ago
Revenue Growth Y/Y
149.96 %
Peers: 11.03 %
Net Margin
-1.08 %
Peers: 9.39 %

Key Findings: Ion Geophysical vs Its Competitors

  • TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 76M vs 37,094M combined for tracked competitors (0.2% combined share).
  • Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+113.4% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs decelerating (-35.8%) for its tracked peer group.
  • Growth: Ion Geophysical generated 150.0% revenue growth year over year in Q3 2021, vs 11.0% for its tracked competitors combined.
  • Profitability: Its -1.1% net margin compares with 9.4% for the peer group.
  • Peer revenue share: Ion Geophysical accounted for 0.7% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 0.3% a year earlier.
  • Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.16M compares with $0.33M for the peer group (0.5x).

Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).

IO Sales vs. its Competitors, Q3 2021

Ion Geophysical reported revenue growth of 149.96 % year on year in Q3 2021, above its competitors' combined revenue growth of 11.03 %.

With a net margin of -1.08 %, Ion Geophysical reported lower profitability than its competitors (9.39 %).

Ion Geophysical generated 0.68 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 0.30 % a year earlier.

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

Ion Geophysical vs. its Competitors, Q3 2021

Revenue growth, year on year

Ion Geophysical +150.0 %
Competitors combined +11.0 %

Net margin

Ion Geophysical -1.1 %
Competitors combined +9.4 %

Revenue run-rate vs trailing 12 months

Ion Geophysical +113.4 %
Competitors combined -35.8 %

TTM net margin

Ion Geophysical -58.4 %
Competitors combined +8.4 %

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.

Competitor Financial Benchmarking - TTM Commercial

TTM revenue, latest-quarter run-rate and net income/margin benchmarked across Ion Geophysical and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.

Entity TTM Revenue Latest Q ×4 Rev Run-rate vs TTM TTM Net Income TTM Net Margin
Ion Geophysical Corp $12,345M $12,345M +12.3% · Accelerating $1,234M 12.3%
Competitors combined $12,345M $12,345M +12.3% · Accelerating $1,234M 12.3%
High-Confidence Competitors (2) $12,345M $12,345M +12.3% · Accelerating $1,234M 12.3%
Similar Growth & Profitability (4) $12,345M $12,345M +12.3% · Accelerating $1,234M 12.3%
Competitor Financial Benchmarking

TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Ion Geophysical's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.

For context: the Oil And Gas Production industry grew revenue 3.3% year over year, combined, vs 150.0% for Ion Geophysical. Ion Geophysical's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.00% to 0.00%, a gain of 0.00 percentage points.

Ion Geophysical'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
Ion Geophysical Corp No No No Yes
Competitors combined (4) 25% 50% 50% 50%
High-Confidence Competitors (2) 0% 50% 50% 100%
Similar Growth & Profitability (8) 37.50 % (3 of 8) 25.00 % (2 of 8) 25.00 % (2 of 8) 37.50 % (3 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, Q3 2021

0.7%market share
  • Ion Geophysical0.7%
  • Competitors combined99.3%

Share of combined quarterly revenue of Ion Geophysical and its 4 tracked competitors.

See Ion Geophysical's full market share breakdown »

IO Stock Performance relative to its Competitors

IO Competitors (weighted) Percent change over the selected range

Ion Geophysical'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.
50%beat U.S.A. 500
Competitors Combined
(1 of 2)
0%beat U.S.A. 500
High-Confidence
(0 of 2)
100%beat U.S.A. 500
Similar Growth & Profitability
(4 of 4)
Entity TTM Share Price Return
(group: median)
vs U.S.A. 500
Ion Geophysical Corp - -
Competitors combined (2) 40.4% 63.2%
High-Confidence Competitors (2) 40.4% 63.2%
Similar-Size Competitors (0) 40.4% 63.2%
Similar Growth & Profitability (4) 40.4% 63.2%
Peer Group Share Price Returns

TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Ion Geophysical'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.

IO Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors

IO High-Confidence Competitors (equal-weighted, 2) Percent change over the selected range

IO Stock Performance relative to Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors

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

5 Best-Performing Tracked Competitors, Trailing 12 Months

#CompetitorTTM Share Price Returnvs U.S.A. 500
1 Slb Limited 282.9% Outperformed
2 Dmc Global Inc 282.9% Outperformed
Best-Performing Competitor Returns

TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Ion Geophysical's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.

Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.

Ion Geophysical's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers

Our Imaging Services group within our E&P Technology & Services segment competes with more than a dozen companies that provide data processing services to E&P companies. See “Services and Products - E&P Technology & Services Segment.” While the barriers to enter this market are relatively low, we believe the barriers to compete at the higher end of the market - the advanced pre-stack depth migration market where our efforts are focused - are significantly higher. At the higher end of this market, CGG (an integrated geophysical company) and Schlumberger (a large integrated oilfield services company), are our E&P Technology & Services segment’s two primary competitors for advanced imaging services. Both of these companies are significantly larger than ION in terms of revenue, processing locations, sales, marketing and financial resources. In addition, both CGG and Schlumberger possess an advantage in the data processing arena, as part of more vertically integrated seismic contractor companies; for example, when these companies acquire large 3-D multi-client surveys, the internal data processing organization will usually be awarded the data processing without any requirement to compete with external vendors. CGG and Schlumberger, along with other competitors, TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA and Spectrum ASA, also develop and sell data libraries that compete with our BasinSPAN data libraries. BGP also competes in this space by primarily partnering with other competitors to develop and sell data libraries.


In the OBS market, OceanGeo competes with a number of companies, including WesternGeco, Fairfield Nodal, Seabed GeoSolutions (a joint venture of Fugro and CGG), Magseis and BGP. The OBS market primarily addresses the production end of the E&P business. This market is primarily vertically integrated with a variety of proprietary technologies, comprising both cable and nodal systems. Most companies operate one to three crews, and there have been three new entrants in the last few years.


The market for seismic services and products is highly competitive and characterized by frequent changes in technology. Our principal competitor for marine seismic equipment is Sercel (a manufacturing subsidiary of CGG). Sercel has the advantage of being able to sell its products and services to its parent company that operates both land and marine crews, providing it with a significant and stable internal market and a greater ability to test new technology in the field. The recent downturn in the industry has disrupted traditional buying patterns. We have seen a generally increasing trend of companies such as Petroleum GeoServices ASA (“PGS”) developing their own instrumentation to create a competitive advantage through products such as GeoStreamer. We also compete with other seismic equipment companies on a product-by-product basis. Our ability to compete effectively in the manufacture and sale of seismic instruments and data acquisition systems depends principally upon continued technological innovation, as well as pricing, system reliability, reputation for quality and ability to deliver on schedule.


Some seismic contractors design, engineer and manufacture seismic acquisition technology in-house (or through a network of third-party vendors) to differentiate themselves. Although this technology competes directly with our towed streamer, and ocean bottom equipment, it is not usually made available to other seismic acquisition contractors. However, the risk exists that other seismic contractors may decide to develop their own seismic technology, which would put additional pressure on the demand for our acquisition equipment.


In addition, we expect continued reductions in the market for spare parts and service of existing equipment as a result of the fleet reductions currently occurring in the marine seismic market. By 2017, we expect the number of 2-D and 3-D marine streamer vessels, including those in operation, under construction, or announced additions to capacity, to decrease by four, to approximately 89 vessels total. This 2017 projection has increased by 1 vessel from the projection one year ago. In addition, there has been an increase in recent years of consolidation within the sector, with the major vessel operators - CGG, WesternGeco and PGS - all acquiring new market entrants in the last several years. The majority of the high-end 3-D seismic capacity is concentrated among the largest three companies - CGG, WesternGeco and PGS. Those three companies are vertically integrated with technology that uniquely differentiates them from the rest of the players. This consolidation reduces the number of potential customers and vessel outfitting opportunities for us. During the downturn in the price of crude oil and the resulting reduction in capital expenditures by E&P companies, we anticipate that older, smaller and less efficient vessels will drop out of the fleet to be replaced by newer vessels.


In the land seismic equipment market, where INOVA competes, the principal competitors are Sercel and Geospace Technologies. INOVA is a joint venture with BGP as a majority stake owner. BGP purchases land seismic equipment from both INOVA and its competitors.

Publicly Traded Peers of Ion Geophysical Corp

Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees
Company Market Cap Revenues Income Employees
Ion Geophysical Corp 9.86 76.07 -44.41 480
Slb Limited 77,543.94 36,365.00 3,150.00 109,000
Dmc Global Inc 117.97 587.72 -18.72 1,500
Cypress Environmental Partners L p 6.01 117.32 -12.08 1,192
Enservco Corporation 0.04 24.02 -5.73 160
SUBTOTAL 77,677.83 37,170.12 3,069.06 112,332

Sources: Ion Geophysical 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 Ion Geophysical Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.

Ion Geophysical'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
CGG Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
Sercel Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
Geospace Technologies Corp Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
Polarcus Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
INOVA Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
Shearwater Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
BGP Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
Schlumberger Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
PGS Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
TGS Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
Competitor Evidence Detail

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

Ion Geophysical'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 2nd Segment 3rd Segment
Ion Geophysical Corp E and P Technology and Services 88.27 % Operations Optimization 21.12 % -
Slb Limited Production Systems 42.03 % Well Construction 30.56 % Reservoir Performance 17.34 %
Dmc Global Inc Arcadia Products 42.95 % DynaEnergetics 42.93 % NobelClad 14.11 %
Cypress Environmental Partners L p Inspection Services 96.30 % Environmental Services 3.70 % All Other Segments 0.00 %
Enservco Corporation Production Services 58.40 % Logistics Services 41.60 % -

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).

Ion Geophysical's Productivity vs Peers Comparison

Revenue and income per employee, trailing 12 months, in $; market cap in millions of $
CompanyMarket CapRevenue / EmployeeIncome / Employee
Ion Geophysical Corp 10 158,477 -92,523
Slb Limited 77,544 333,624 28,899
Dmc Global Inc 118 391,813 -12,481
Cypress Environmental Partners L p 6 98,420 -10,133
Enservco Corporation 0 150,106 -35,800
PEERS TOTAL 77,668 331,635 27,836

Ion Geophysical'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 2nd Market 3rd Market
Ion Geophysical Corp Latin America 61.14 % Europe 28.48 % Middle East 7.07 %
Slb Limited Middle East 28.67 % Europe Africa 26.58 % North America 25.01 %

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.

Ion Geophysical's Profitability & Cost Structure

Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Oil And Gas Production industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (165 companies). See the full Oil And Gas Production industry profitability benchmarks.
Metric Company Industry Difference
Gross Margin 44.92 % 57.30 % (avg) -12.4 pp
Operating Margin -19.88 % industry median -16.4 pp
EBITDA Margin -37.55 % 11.81 % (avg) -49.4 pp
Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) 3.02 % 24.95 % (avg) -21.9 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.

Ion Geophysical's Valuation vs Competitive Position

Valuation multiples vs the Oil And Gas Production industry average (165 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 Oil And Gas Production industry valuation benchmarks.
Metric Company Industry Average Difference
P/E - 15.8x -
EV / EBITDA - 8.9x -
P/B -0.6x 1.8x -2.4x
Return on Equity 65.95 % industry aggregate 67.79 %
Return on Invested Capital 93.95 % 5.38 % (avg) 88.57 %

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.

Ion Geophysical's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory

Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.
Metric 20132014201520162017201820192020
Revenue Growth 4.34 %-7.21 %-56.53 %-21.99 %14.32 %-8.86 %-2.98 %-40.05 %
Operating Margin 2.99 %-23.14 %-45.43 %-24.98 %-4.40 %-30.14 %-14.00 %-13.93 %
Return on Invested Capital 1.61 %-13.27 %-34.22 %-14.01 %-4.36 %-27.53 %-21.18 %-59.06 %
P/E --------

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.

Ion Geophysical's Strategic Group Map

Every company in Ion Geophysical's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Ion Geophysical is shown in red; its closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC (the Similar Growth & Profitability group above) are labeled.

Revenue Growth (TTM, %)Operating Margin (%)GPRKPARRRENBDCOSAEXMEPIon GeophysicalBBLSEPE

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.

Ion Geophysical'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
Barriers to Entry Lower than typical for the industry Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 3.02 % vs industry average 24.95 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above)
Supplier Power Not covered on this page See Ion Geophysical's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data
Buyer Power Not covered on this page See Ion Geophysical'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.

Ion Geophysical'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.

High Strength
Medium Strength
Low Strength
High Attractiveness
Invest / Grow
Invest / Grow
Selective
Medium Attractiveness
Invest / Grow
Selective
Harvest
Low Attractiveness
Selective
Harvest
Harvest / Divest Ion Geophysical

Ion Geophysical falls in the Low attractiveness / Low strength cell: Harvest / Divest.

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.

Ion Geophysical'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 67.8 points above the industry aggregate.
  • Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+113.4% annualized vs trailing 12 months).

Weaknesses

  • Operating margin 16.4 points below the industry median.
  • Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below, the standard financial-distress signal.

Opportunities

  • A meaningful share of tracked competitors (50.00 %) show financial-distress signals, a possible opening to gain share.

Threats

  • Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-35.8% annualized).

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.

Ion Geophysical's Financial Strength vs Peers Comparison

Quick ratio, working capital, debt to equity and asset turnover, trailing 12 months
CompanyQuick RatioWorking CapitalDebt / EquityAsset Turnover
Ion Geophysical Corp 0.22 0.50 - 0.40
Slb Limited 0.20 1.37 0.38 0.66
Dmc Global Inc 0.25 2.55 0.23 0.91
Cypress Environmental Partners L p 0.11 0.49 0.60 1.16
Enservco Corporation 0.03 0.65 4.01 1.68

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.

Ion Geophysical's Revenue and Income Growth vs Peers

Quarterly revenue and net income growth, year over year and quarter over quarter
CompanyPeriodRevenue Y/YRevenue Q/QIncome Y/YIncome Q/Q
Ion Geophysical CorpQ3 2021+150.0 %+173.1 %--
Slb LimitedQ2 2026+5.0 %+2.9 %-22.2 %+7.1 %
Dmc Global Inc Q2 2026+1.4 %+15.9 %+528.3 %-
Cypress Environmental Partners L p Q4 2021-31.0 %-19.6 %--
Enservco CorporationQ3 2024+35.5 %+5.8 %--
PEERS TOTAL+5.0 %+3.3 %-21.1 %+12.1 %

Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.

Ion Geophysical's Peers' Costs of Sales and Capital Expenditures

Context for revenue growth: peer costs and capex, year over year and quarter over quarter
CompanyPeriodCosts Y/YCosts Q/QCapex Y/YCapex Q/Q
Ion Geophysical CorpQ3 2021+22.8 %+63.5 %+656.5 %+565.4 %
Slb LimitedQ2 2026+79.3 %+87.1 %+29.0 %+27.8 %
Dmc Global Inc Q2 2026+3.9 %+11.5 %-56.4 %-39.6 %
Cypress Environmental Partners L p Q4 2021-30.7 %-21.3 %--
Enservco CorporationQ3 2024-8.0 %-3.4 %--

Ion Geophysical's Returns and Turnover vs Peers

ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover
CompanyROAROIROEReceivables TurnoverInventory Turnover
Ion Geophysical Corp---7.093.87
Slb Limited5.73%7.18%11.58%4.053.78
Dmc Global Inc ---5.993.04
Cypress Environmental Partners L p ---7.45-
Enservco Corporation---10.0492.98

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).

Ion Geophysical's Valuation vs Peers

P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book
CompanyP/EPrice / SalesPEGP/CFPrice / Book
Ion Geophysical Corp-0.13---
Slb Limited24.642.13--2.85
Dmc Global Inc -0.20-7.320.50
Cypress Environmental Partners L p -0.05--0.07
Enservco Corporation-0.00--0.01
PEERS AVERAGE25.312.09-2.82

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.