Kimberly Clark's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Kimberly Clark (KMB) 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: Kimberly Clark vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 16,582M vs 145,010M combined for its competitors (10.3% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is holding steady (+1.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs holding steady (-1.1%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Kimberly Clark generated 0.6% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 2.2% for its competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 8.4% net margin compares with 12.5% for the peer group.
- Scale: Kimberly Clark ranks #1 of 14 companies by market capitalization in the Paper & Paper Products industry, holding 47.9% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Kimberly Clark accounted for 10.5% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 10.6% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.46M compares with $1.15M for the peer group (0.4x).
- Structure: Kimberly Clark operates in the following segments: North America (NA), International Personal Care (IPC).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
KMB Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Kimberly Clark reported revenue growth of 0.62 % year on year in Q2 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 2.15 %.
With a net margin of 8.36 %, Kimberly Clark reported lower profitability than its competitors (12.46 %).
Kimberly Clark generated 10.46 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 10.60 % a year earlier.
Kimberly Clark vs. its Competitors, Q2 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 Kimberly Clark 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 Kimberly Clark and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Kimberly clark Corporation | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (7) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (5) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Kimberly Clark's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Paper & Paper Products industry grew revenue 2.0% year over year, combined, vs 0.6% for Kimberly Clark. Kimberly Clark's share of combined industry revenue moved from 12.11% to 11.95%, a loss of 0.16 percentage points.
Kimberly Clark's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kimberly clark Corporation | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Competitors combined (22) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (7) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (5) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 87.50 % (7 of 8) | 87.50 % (7 of 8) | 87.50 % (7 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 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.
KMB Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
KMB Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
KMB Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
KMB 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 | Horizon Kinetics Holding Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Helen Of Troy Limited | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Interparfums Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Cardinal Health Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | The Honest Company Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Kimberly Clark's best-performing competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Kimberly Clark's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of Kimberly clark Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Kimberly clark Corporation |
36,816.32 | 16,582.00 |
 Procter and Gamble Co |
402,146.83 | 87,922.00 |
 3m Company |
98,128.60 | 25,247.00 |
 Cardinal Health Inc |
63,205.52 | 250,735.00 |
 Church and Dwight Co Inc |
26,574.47 | 6,245.30 |
 The Clorox Company |
12,166.09 | 7,196.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 652,673.61 | 475,943.46 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Kimberly clark Corporation.
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Kimberly clark Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Kimberly Clark's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Kimberly Clark reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Lakeland Industries Inc | Company report | 85% |
| The Honest Company Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Alpha Pro Tech Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Walmart Inc. | Company report | 85% |
| Bank First Corp | Company report | 85% |
| Interparfums Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Innovative Designs Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Innovate Corp | Company report | 85% |
| Unilever Plc | Company report | 85% |
| The Clorox Company | Company report | 85% |
| Resolute Forest Products Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Procter and Gamble Co | Company report | 85% |
| Clearwater Paper Corporation | Company report | 85% |
| Grove Collaborative Holdings Inc | Company report | 85% |
| 3m Company | Company report | 85% |
| Helen Of Troy Limited | Company report | 85% |
| National Presto Industries Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Kimberly Clark's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Kimberly Clark'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 |
|---|---|
| Kimberly clark Corporation | North America (NA) 64.41 % |
| Procter and Gamble Co | Fabric & Home Care 35.25 % |
| 3m Company | Safety and Industrial 48.33 % |
| Cardinal Health Inc | Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions 92.08 % |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | Consumer Domestic 76.47 % |
| The Clorox Company | Health and Wellness 48.19 % |
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).
Sign in to see all peers for Kimberly clark Corporation.
Kimberly Clark'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kimberly clark Corporation | 36,816 | 460,611 | 55,250 |
| Procter and Gamble Co | 402,147 | 845,404 | 154,750 |
| 3m Company | 98,129 | 417,306 | 58,579 |
| Cardinal Health Inc | 63,206 | 3,923,865 | 24,225 |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | 26,574 | 1,125,279 | 139,604 |
| The Clorox Company | 12,166 | 817,727 | 78,295 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 615,857 | 1,154,839 | 87,605 |
Sign in to see all peers for Kimberly clark Corporation.
Kimberly Clark'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 |
|---|---|
| Procter and Gamble Co | Non-US 52.05 % |
| 3m Company | United States 46.28 % |
| Cardinal Health Inc | United States 99.35 % |
| Interparfums Inc | North America 40.85 % |
| Patterson Companies Inc | United States 83.13 % |
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.
Sign in to see all peers for Kimberly clark Corporation.
Kimberly Clark's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 13 companies in Kimberly Clark's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Kimberly Clark ranks #1 of 13 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 47.85 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 3,233, indicating a highly concentrated market structure (see Methodology: Market Structure & Concentration).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kimberly clark Corporation | 36,816 | 47.85 % |
| 2 | International Paper Company | 18,130 | 23.56 % |
| 3 | Avery Dennison Corporation | 14,493 | 18.84 % |
| 4 | Neptune Insurance Holdings Inc | 4,083 | 5.31 % |
| 5 | Sylvamo Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Mativ Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Magnera Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Ranpak Holdings Corp | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Clearwater Paper Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Kimberly Clark'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.
Kimberly Clark'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 | Kimberly clark Corporation | 36,816 | 9.73 % |
| 2 | International Paper Company | 18,130 | -2.60 % |
| 3 | Avery Dennison Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 4 | Neptune Insurance Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 5 | Sylvamo Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 6 | Mativ Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Kimberly Clark'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.
Kimberly Clark's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Paper & Paper Products industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (26 companies). See the full Paper & Paper Products industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 36.76 % | 17.55 % (avg) | +19.2 pp |
| Operating Margin | 14.33 % | industry median | +14.3 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 19.59 % | 10.83 % (avg) | +8.8 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 9.12 % | 5.18 % (avg) | +3.9 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.
Kimberly Clark's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Paper & Paper Products industry average (26 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 Paper & Paper Products industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | 17.0x | 20.6x | -3.7x |
| EV / EBITDA | 12.1x | 9.6x | +2.5x |
| P/B | 19.2x | 2.3x | +16.9x |
| Return on Equity | 115.54 % | industry aggregate | 122.96 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 20.11 % | -0.29 % (avg) | 20.40 % |
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.
Kimberly Clark'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 | 1.24 % | -0.19 % | 3.74 % | 1.57 % | 3.78 % | 1.27 % | -17.75 % | -2.13 % |
| Operating Margin | 12.06 % | 16.21 % | 16.95 % | 13.17 % | 13.29 % | 11.47 % | - | 13.46 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 26.18 % | 34.64 % | 28.81 % | 21.37 % | 23.09 % | 21.30 % | - | 20.97 % |
| P/E | 27.9x | 21.9x | 19.8x | 25.7x | 23.3x | 23.3x | 18.1x | 18.1x |
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.
Kimberly Clark's Strategic Group Map
Kimberly Clark 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.
Kimberly Clark's trailing-12-month revenue growth of 0.7% and operating margin of 14.3% compares with an average of 2.2% growth and 15.8% margin across its 8 closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC -- Kimberly Clark sits below that peer average on growth and below 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.
Kimberly Clark's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
See Methodology: BCG Growth-Share Matrix for how relative share and growth are calculated and thresholded.
Kimberly Clark falls in the Cash Cow quadrant: relative market share of 2.03x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 0.2% (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.
Kimberly Clark'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 | Low | Industry HHI of 3,233 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | High (capital intensive) | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 9.12 % vs industry average 5.18 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Kimberly Clark's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Kimberly Clark's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Kimberly Clark 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.
Kimberly Clark'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
- Market leader by capitalization in its industry (#1 of 13, 47.85 % share).
- Operating margin 14.3 points above the industry median.
- Return on equity 123.0 points above the industry aggregate.
Weaknesses
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
Opportunities
- Trades at a lower P/E than the industry average (17.0x vs 20.6x) despite a higher return on invested capital -- a possible re-rating opportunity.
Threats
- High capital intensity requires continuous reinvestment just to keep pace with the industry.
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Kimberly Clark'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kimberly clark Corporation | 0.10 | 0.80 | 4.08 |
| Procter and Gamble Co | 0.26 | 0.71 | 0.71 |
| 3m Company | - | 1.47 | 3.62 |
| Cardinal Health Inc | 0.10 | 0.93 | - |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | 0.27 | 1.09 | 0.55 |
| The Clorox Company | 0.16 | 0.74 | 29.06 |
Sign in to see all peers for Kimberly clark Corporation.
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.
Kimberly Clark'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kimberly clark Corporation | Q2 2026 | +0.6 % | -31.6 % |
| Procter and Gamble Co | Q3 2026 | +4.0 % | -1.0 % |
| 3m Company | Q3 2026 | +1.0 % | +63.3 % |
| Cardinal Health Inc | Q1 2026 | +11.0 % | -25.2 % |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | Q3 2026 | +1.1 % | +16.5 % |
| The Clorox Company | Q3 2026 | +33.3 % | +107.3 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +5.3 % | +36.7 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Kimberly clark Corporation.
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Kimberly Clark'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kimberly clark Corporation | Q2 2026 | -4.5 % | +78.7 % |
| Procter and Gamble Co | Q3 2026 | +7.3 % | +13.8 % |
| 3m Company | Q3 2026 | +0.2 % | +17.4 % |
| Cardinal Health Inc | Q1 2026 | +10.8 % | - |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | Q3 2026 | -2.1 % | +5.7 % |
| The Clorox Company | Q3 2026 | +36.3 % | +5.6 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Kimberly clark Corporation.
Kimberly Clark's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kimberly clark Corporation | 11.41% | 19.70% | 115.54% |
| Procter and Gamble Co | 12.54% | 17.47% | 29.71% |
| 3m Company | 9.60% | 13.24% | 93.07% |
| Cardinal Health Inc | 2.84% | 26.79% | - |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | 8.52% | 9.23% | 18.21% |
| The Clorox Company | 9.98% | 15.07% | 551.20% |
Sign in to see all peers for Kimberly clark Corporation.
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).
Kimberly Clark's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Kimberly clark Corporation | 18.91 | 2.22 |
| Procter and Gamble Co | 25.27 | 4.57 |
| 3m Company | 27.98 | 3.89 |
| Cardinal Health Inc | 41.01 | 0.25 |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | 34.36 | 4.26 |
| The Clorox Company | 18.06 | 1.69 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 17.72 | 1.37 |
Sign in to see all peers for Kimberly clark Corporation.
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.