Kansas City Southern's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Kansas City Southern (KSU) 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: Kansas City Southern vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 3,370M vs 458,130M combined for tracked competitors (0.7% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-17.7% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs decelerating (-32.1%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Kansas City Southern generated -5.0% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2020, vs -1.5% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 24.0% net margin compares with 51.0% for the peer group.
- Peer revenue share: Kansas City Southern accounted for 0.9% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 0.9% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.52M compares with $0.92M for the peer group (0.6x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
KSU Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2020
Kansas City Southern reported revenue contraction of 4.95 % year on year in Q2 2020, below its competitors' combined revenue change of -1.48 %.
With a net margin of 23.98 %, Kansas City Southern reported lower profitability than its competitors (51.01 %).
Kansas City Southern generated 0.88 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 0.92 % a year earlier.
Kansas City Southern vs. its Competitors, Q2 2020
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 Kansas City Southern and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Kansas City Southern | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (2) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (6) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Kansas City Southern's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Railroads industry grew revenue 7.4% year over year, combined, vs -5.0% for Kansas City Southern. Kansas City Southern's share of combined industry revenue moved from 1.76% to 1.56%, a loss of 0.20 percentage points.
Kansas City Southern'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas City Southern | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Competitors combined (8) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (3) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 87.50 % (7 of 8) | 75.00 % (6 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.
KSU Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
KSU Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
KSU 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 | Csx Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Union Pacific Corp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Norfolk Southern Corp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Gatx Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Kansas City Southern's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Kansas City Southern's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
The Company competes against other railroads, many of which are much larger and have significantly greater financial and other resources. The railroad industry in North America is dominated by a few very large carriers. The larger U.S. western railroads (BNSF Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company), in particular, are significant competitors of KCS because of their substantial resources and competitive routes.
In Mexico, KCSM’s operations are subject to competition from other railroads,
particularly Ferrocarril Mexicano, S.A. de C.V. (“Ferromex”) and
Ferrosur, S.A. de C.V. (“Ferrosur”), both controlled by Grupo Mexico
S.A.B. de C.V. Ferromex and Ferrosur together are much larger and have significantly
greater financial and other resources than KCSM, serving most of the major ports
and cities in Mexico and together owning fifty percent of FTVM, which serves
industries located within Mexico City.
The ongoing impact of past and future rail consolidation is uncertain. However,
KCS believes that its investments and strategic alliances continue to competitively
position the Company to attract additional rail traffic throughout its rail
network.
The Company is subject to competition from motor carriers, barge lines and other
maritime shipping, which compete across certain routes in KCS’s operating
areas. In the past, truck carriers have generally eroded the railroad industry’s
share of total transportation revenues. Intermodal traffic and certain other
traffic face highly price sensitive competition, particularly from motor carriers.
However, rail carriers, including KCS, have placed an emphasis on competing
in the intermodal marketplace and working with motor carriers to provide end-to-end
transportation of products.
While deregulation of U.S. freight rates has enhanced the ability of railroads
to compete with each other and with alternative modes of transportation, this
increased competition has generally resulted in downward pressure on freight
rates since deregulation. Competition with other railroads and other modes of
transportation is generally based on the rates charged, the quality and reliability
of the service provided and the quality of the carrier’s equipment for
certain commodities.
Publicly Traded Peers of Kansas City Southern
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Kansas City Southern | - | 3,370.40 |
| Union Pacific Corp | 161,645.22 | 25,490.00 |
| Csx Corporation | 86,462.09 | 14,512.00 |
| Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd | 75,492.21 | 11,371.74 |
| Norfolk Southern Corp | 69,525.00 | 12,540.00 |
| Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc | 18,864.81 | 7,476.80 |
| SUBTOTAL | 418,076.05 | 461,500.35 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Kansas City Southern.
Sources: Kansas City Southern'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 Kansas City Southern versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Kansas City Southern's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Ferrocarril Mexicano, S.A. de C.V. | Named by the company | 85% |
| Union Pacific Railroad Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| FTVM | Named by the company | 85% |
| Ferromex | Named by the company | 85% |
| BNSF Railway Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Grupo Mexico S.A.B. de C.V. | Named by the company | 85% |
| Ferrosur, S.A. de C.V. | Named by the company | 85% |
| Csx Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Norfolk Southern Corp | Named by the company | 85% |
| Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Kansas City Southern'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.
Kansas City Southern'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 |
|---|---|
| Union Pacific Corp | Reportable 98.85 % |
| Csx Corporation | Rail 94.20 % |
| Norfolk Southern Corp | Railway Operating Revenues Market Group Merchandise 61.56 % |
| Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc | Investor Communication Solutions 74.37 % |
| Gatx Corporation | Rail North America 74.99 % |
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).
Sign in to see all peers for Kansas City Southern.
Kansas City Southern'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas City Southern | - | 516,774 | 150,843 |
| Union Pacific Corp | 161,645 | 870,352 | 250,282 |
| Csx Corporation | 86,462 | 630,957 | 140,130 |
| Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd | 75,492 | 583,795 | 146,314 |
| Norfolk Southern Corp | 69,525 | 649,741 | 136,528 |
| Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc | 18,865 | 467,300 | 160,631 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 418,076 | 921,309 | 211,272 |
Sign in to see all peers for Kansas City Southern.
Kansas City Southern'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 |
|---|---|
| Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc | United States 85.26 % |
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.
Kansas City Southern's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Railroads industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (19 companies). See the full Railroads industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 100.00 % | 48.97 % (avg) | +51.0 pp |
| Operating Margin | 36.41 % | industry median | +21.9 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 52.81 % | 27.99 % (avg) | +24.8 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 15.70 % | 12.13 % (avg) | +3.6 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.
Kansas City Southern's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | -6.14 % | -3.50 % | 10.65 % | 5.08 % | 5.60 % | -8.14 % | 11.95 % | 14.36 % |
| Operating Margin | 33.23 % | 35.07 % | 35.68 % | 36.34 % | 30.92 % | 38.10 % | 29.99 % | 36.41 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 6.69 % | 6.50 % | 7.04 % | 6.98 % | 6.14 % | 6.47 % | 5.74 % | 7.59 % |
| P/E | 16.1x | 19.4x | 11.8x | 16.4x | 28.8x | 30.4x | 1,000,000,000,000.0x | - |
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.
Kansas City Southern's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Kansas City Southern's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Kansas City Southern 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.
Kansas City Southern'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 | High (capital intensive) | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 15.70 % vs industry average 12.13 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Kansas City Southern's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Kansas City Southern'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.
Kansas City Southern'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.
Kansas City Southern 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.
Kansas City Southern'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
- Operating margin 21.9 points above the industry median.
Weaknesses
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-17.7% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Opportunities
- A meaningful share of tracked competitors (37.50 %) show financial-distress signals, a possible opening to gain share.
Threats
- Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-32.1% annualized).
- High capital intensity requires continuous reinvestment just to keep pace with the industry.
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.
Kansas City Southern'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas City Southern | 0.16 | 1.13 | 0.78 |
| Union Pacific Corp | 0.22 | 0.89 | 1.64 |
| Csx Corporation | - | 0.86 | 1.77 |
| Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd | 0.09 | 0.66 | 0.62 |
| Norfolk Southern Corp | 0.38 | 0.86 | 1.08 |
| Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc | 0.23 | 1.01 | 1.19 |
Sign in to see all peers for Kansas City Southern.
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.
Kansas City Southern'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas City Southern | Q4 2020 | +15.6 % | -32.8 % |
| Union Pacific Corp | Q2 2026 | +12.8 % | +6.2 % |
| Csx Corporation | Q2 2026 | +10.1 % | +20.9 % |
| Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd | Q2 2026 | +12.6 % | -17.0 % |
| Norfolk Southern Corp | Q2 2026 | +11.4 % | -4.6 % |
| Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc | Q2 2026 | +7.5 % | +8.8 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +10.4 % | +72.7 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Kansas City Southern.
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Kansas City Southern'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas City Southern | Q4 2020 | - | +24.1 % |
| Union Pacific Corp | Q2 2026 | +62.8 % | -6.7 % |
| Csx Corporation | Q2 2026 | +65.8 % | -25.8 % |
| Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd | Q2 2026 | +52.6 % | -11.0 % |
| Norfolk Southern Corp | Q2 2026 | +84.9 % | -7.6 % |
| Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc | Q2 2026 | +5.5 % | -2.7 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Kansas City Southern.
Kansas City Southern's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas City Southern | 9.21% | 8.70% | 20.24% |
| Union Pacific Corp | 10.50% | 11.20% | 38.65% |
| Csx Corporation | 7.33% | 6.28% | 24.06% |
| Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd | 4.36% | 4.13% | 8.01% |
| Norfolk Southern Corp | 5.85% | 6.35% | 16.80% |
| Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc | 29.74% | 34.48% | 93.89% |
Sign in to see all peers for Kansas City Southern.
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).
Kansas City Southern's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Kansas City Southern | 44.79 | - |
| Union Pacific Corp | 22.05 | 6.34 |
| Csx Corporation | 27.04 | 5.96 |
| Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd | 21.54 | 6.64 |
| Norfolk Southern Corp | 26.39 | 5.54 |
| Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc | 16.82 | 2.52 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 3.94 | 0.91 |
Sign in to see all peers for Kansas City Southern.
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.