Kaman's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Kaman (KAMN) 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: Kaman vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 776M vs 978,237M combined for tracked competitors (0.1% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+4.7% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs decelerating (-14.4%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Kaman generated 3.0% revenue growth year over year in Q4 2023, vs 4.5% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 0.6% net margin compares with 25.4% for the peer group.
- Peer revenue share: Kaman accounted for 0.1% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 0.1% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.18M compares with $0.51M 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).
KAMN Sales vs. its Competitors, Q4 2023
Kaman reported revenue growth of 3.03 % year on year in Q4 2023, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 4.53 %.
With a net margin of 0.61 %, Kaman reported lower profitability than its competitors (25.36 %).
Kaman generated 0.10 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 0.10 % a year earlier.
Kaman vs. its Competitors, Q4 2023
Revenue 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 Kaman and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Kaman Corporation | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (1) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Kaman's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Aerospace & Defense industry grew revenue 13.0% year over year, combined, vs 3.0% for Kaman. Kaman's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.18% to 0.16%, a loss of 0.02 percentage points.
Kaman'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaman Corporation | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Competitors combined (84) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (1) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 50.00 % (4 of 8) | 14.30 % (1 of 7) |
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.
KAMN Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
KAMN Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
KAMN 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 | Emcore Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Lumentum Holdings Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Maxlinear Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Dupont De Nemours Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Applied Optoelectronics Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Kaman's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Kaman's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
The Aerospace segment operates in a highly competitive environment with many
other organizations, some of which are substantially larger than us and have
greater financial strength and more extensive resources. We compete for composite
and metallic aerostructures subcontracts, and helicopter sales and structures,
bearings and components business on the basis of price and quality; product
endurance and special performance characteristics; proprietary knowledge; the
quality of our products and services; the availability of facilities, equipment
and personnel to perform contracts; and the reputation of our business. Competitors
for our business include small machine shops and offshore manufacturing facilities.
We compete for engineering design services business primarily on the basis of
technical competence, the reputation of our business, the availability of our
personnel and price. We compete for advanced technology fuzing business primarily
on the basis of technical competence, product quality and price; and also on
the basis of our experience as a developer and manufacturer of fuzes for particular
weapon types and the availability of our facilities, equipment and personnel.
We are also affected by the political and economic circumstances of our potential
foreign customers.
Publicly Traded Peers of Kaman Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Kaman Corporation | 1,303.49 | 775.85 |
| Broadcom Inc | 1,716,265.53 | 89,104.00 |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 429,120.81 | 63,325.00 |
| Marvell Technology Inc | 236,018.79 | 8,715.90 |
| Amphenol Corporation | 217,359.12 | 29,010.70 |
| Danaher Corporation | 156,768.78 | 25,107.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 4,196,969.45 | 983,848.96 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Kaman Corporation.
Sources: Kaman Corporation'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 Kaman Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Kaman's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Cpi Aerostructures Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Crane Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Honeywell International Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Kaman'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.
Kaman'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 |
|---|---|
| Broadcom Inc | Semiconductor Solutions 64.81 % |
| Cisco Systems Inc | Americas 60.41 % |
| Marvell Technology Inc | Reportable 100.00 % |
| Amphenol Corporation | Communications Solutions Segment 61.97 % |
| Danaher Corporation | Diagnostics 39.36 % |
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).
Kaman'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kaman Corporation | 1,303 | 180,431 | 1,848 |
| Broadcom Inc | 1,716,266 | 2,700,121 | 1,159,545 |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 429,121 | 768,507 | 161,007 |
| Marvell Technology Inc | 236,019 | 1,165,227 | 676,350 |
| Amphenol Corporation | 217,359 | 170,651 | 30,516 |
| Danaher Corporation | 156,769 | 418,450 | 66,733 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 4,195,666 | 512,372 | 105,071 |
Kaman'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 |
|---|---|
| Broadcom Inc | Asia Pacific 60.15 % |
| Marvell Technology Inc | China 43.75 % |
| Amphenol Corporation | Other foreign locations 48.31 % |
| Danaher Corporation | North America 39.49 % |
| Parker hannifin Corporation | North America 67.21 % |
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.
Kaman's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Aerospace & Defense industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (56 companies). See the full Aerospace & Defense industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 34.82 % | 30.35 % (avg) | +4.5 pp |
| Operating Margin | 6.33 % | industry median | +0.3 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 10.71 % | 4.84 % (avg) | +5.9 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 3.35 % | 7.10 % (avg) | -3.7 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.
Kaman's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Aerospace & Defense industry average (56 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 Aerospace & Defense industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 36.1x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | 15.1x | 21.5x | -6.4x |
| P/B | 1.0x | 5.2x | -4.2x |
| Return on Equity | 1.16 % | industry aggregate | -19.43 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 2.61 % | 2.69 % (avg) | -0.08 % |
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.
Kaman's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 1.87 % | -0.38 % | 5.04 % | -59.39 % | 3.00 % | -9.62 % | -2.97 % | 12.78 % |
| Operating Margin | 5.86 % | 6.09 % | 4.43 % | 7.01 % | -10.75 % | 6.98 % | -9.64 % | 6.33 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 6.19 % | 6.16 % | 4.55 % | 2.77 % | -4.10 % | 2.62 % | -3.35 % | 2.61 % |
| P/E | 23.3x | 33.2x | 29.7x | 8.7x | - | 26.2x | - | - |
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.
Kaman's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Kaman's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Kaman 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.
Kaman'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 3.35 % vs industry average 7.10 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Kaman's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Kaman'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.
Kaman'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.
Kaman falls in the Medium attractiveness / High strength cell: Invest / Grow.
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.
Kaman'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 (+4.7% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 19.4 points below the industry aggregate.
Opportunities
- Industry revenue growing at a healthy 15.0% median pace.
Threats
- Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-14.4% 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.
Kaman'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kaman Corporation | 0.14 | 1.64 | 0.85 |
| Broadcom Inc | 0.99 | 2.05 | 0.75 |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 0.25 | 0.94 | 0.63 |
| Marvell Technology Inc | 0.98 | 2.25 | 0.31 |
| Amphenol Corporation | 0.17 | 2.11 | 1.43 |
| Danaher Corporation | - | 1.73 | 0.40 |
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.
Kaman'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kaman Corporation | Q4 2023 | +3.0 % | - |
| Broadcom Inc | Q2 2026 | +85.5 % | +216.1 % |
| Cisco Systems Inc | Q2 2026 | +17.6 % | +51.3 % |
| Marvell Technology Inc | Q1 2026 | +27.6 % | -70.1 % |
| Amphenol Corporation | Q2 2026 | +55.0 % | +62.1 % |
| Danaher Corporation | Q2 2026 | +5.5 % | +56.8 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +17.5 % | +110.3 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Kaman'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kaman Corporation | Q4 2023 | +3.9 % | -74.1 % |
| Broadcom Inc | Q2 2026 | +74.0 % | +274.6 % |
| Cisco Systems Inc | Q2 2026 | +14.8 % | +79.7 % |
| Marvell Technology Inc | Q1 2026 | +22.8 % | +30.3 % |
| Amphenol Corporation | Q2 2026 | +44.8 % | +19.7 % |
| Danaher Corporation | Q2 2026 | +10.0 % | +8.5 % |
Kaman's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kaman Corporation | 0.52% | 0.67% | 1.16% |
| Broadcom Inc | 21.57% | 24.07% | 43.74% |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 10.64% | 11.94% | 27.52% |
| Marvell Technology Inc | 22.14% | 25.02% | 33.73% |
| Amphenol Corporation | 13.80% | 15.13% | 37.19% |
| Danaher Corporation | 4.72% | 5.44% | 7.66% |
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).
Kaman's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Kaman Corporation | - | 1.68 |
| Broadcom Inc | 44.74 | 19.26 |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 32.22 | 6.78 |
| Marvell Technology Inc | 90.61 | 27.08 |
| Amphenol Corporation | 42.15 | 7.49 |
| Danaher Corporation | 39.42 | 6.24 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 20.82 | 4.27 |
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.