Kyocera's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Kyocera (KYO) 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: Kyocera vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 14,239M vs 11M combined for its competitors (99.9% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+280.3% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+60.4%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Kyocera generated -3.1% revenue growth year over year in Q4 2016, vs -7.1% for its competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 7.7% net margin compares with -93.9% for the peer group.
- Peer revenue share: Kyocera accounted for 100.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 100.0% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.19M compares with $0.80M for the peer group (0.2x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
KYO Sales vs. its Competitors, Q4 2016
Kyocera reported revenue contraction of 3.07 % year on year in Q4 2016, above its competitors' combined revenue change of -7.08 %.
With a net margin of 7.72 %, Kyocera achieved higher profitability than its competitors (-93.88 %).
Kyocera generated 99.97 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 99.97 % a year earlier.
API endpoints for this dataset
Kyocera vs. its Competitors, Q4 2016
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 Kyocera 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 Kyocera and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Kyocera Corp | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (2) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Kyocera's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Semiconductors industry grew revenue 48.1% year over year, combined, vs -3.1% for Kyocera. Kyocera's share of combined industry revenue moved from 3.55% to 2.32%, a loss of 1.23 percentage points.
Kyocera's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyocera Corp | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Competitors combined (4) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (6) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 87.50 % (7 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 50.00 % (4 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.
KYO Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
KYO Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
KYO 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 | Sitime Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Sintx Technologies Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Dna X Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Kyocera's best-performing competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Publicly Traded Peers of Kyocera Corp
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Kyocera Corp |
20,279.02 | 14,239.21 |
 Sitime Corporation |
11,460.99 | 467.99 |
 Aktis Oncology Inc |
874.85 | 9.66 |
 Sintx Technologies Inc |
7.57 | 1.33 |
 Dna X Inc |
2.88 | 60.53 |
| SUBTOTAL | 32,625.31 | 14,778.72 |
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Kyocera Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Kyocera's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Kyocera reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Sitime Corporation | Company report | 85% |
| Sintx Technologies Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Dna X Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Gct Semiconductor Holding Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Knowles Corporation | Company report | 85% |
| Siyata Mobile Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Aktis Oncology Inc | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Kyocera's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Kyocera'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 |
|---|---|
| Sitime Corporation | Reportable 100.00 % |
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).
Kyocera'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kyocera Corp | 20,279 | 187,506 | 9,725 |
| Sitime Corporation | 11,461 | 1,061,190 | 31,955 |
| Aktis Oncology Inc | 875 | 48,055 | -375,766 |
| Sintx Technologies Inc | 8 | 41,563 | -591,438 |
| Dna X Inc | 3 | 15,132,500 | -2,136,750 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 12,346 | 795,729 | -131,136 |
Kyocera's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Semiconductors industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (180 companies). See the full Semiconductors industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 23.85 % | 29.37 % (avg) | -5.5 pp |
| Operating Margin | 6.06 % | industry median | +2.1 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 13.77 % | 4.97 % (avg) | +8.8 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 5.79 % | 8.78 % (avg) | -3.0 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.
Kyocera's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Semiconductors industry average (180 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 Semiconductors industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | 0.3x | 39.2x | -38.9x |
| EV / EBITDA | 9.7x | 21.5x | -11.8x |
| P/B | 1.0x | 6.0x | -5.0x |
| Return on Equity | 3.23 % | industry aggregate | -17.01 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 1.72 % | -0.97 % (avg) | 2.69 % |
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.
Kyocera's Strategic Group Map
Kyocera 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.
Kyocera's trailing-12-month revenue growth of 8.1% and operating margin of 6.1% compares with an average of 9.5% growth and 4.9% margin across its 8 closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC -- Kyocera sits below that peer average on growth and above 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.
Kyocera'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 5.79 % vs industry average 8.78 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Kyocera's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Kyocera's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Kyocera falls in the Low attractiveness / High strength cell: Selective.
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.
Kyocera'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 (+280.3% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 17.0 points below the industry aggregate.
Opportunities
- Industry revenue growing at a healthy 10.2% median pace.
- Trades at a lower P/E than the industry average (0.3x vs 39.2x) despite a higher return on invested capital -- a possible re-rating opportunity.
- A meaningful share of competitors (75.00 %) show financial-distress signals, a possible opening to gain share.
Threats
- Losing revenue share to the broader industry (-1.2 points over the past year).
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Kyocera'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kyocera Corp | 1.01 | 3.52 | 0.02 |
| Sitime Corporation | - | 13.05 | 0.30 |
| Aktis Oncology Inc | 5.48 | 7.73 | 0.06 |
| Sintx Technologies Inc | 1.04 | 1.60 | 0.02 |
| Dna X Inc | 0.06 | 0.66 | - |
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.
Kyocera'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kyocera Corp | Q1 2016 | +8.1 % | -23.2 % |
| Sitime Corporation | Q2 2026 | +128.0 % | - |
| Aktis Oncology Inc | Q2 2026 | -62.5 % | - |
| Sintx Technologies Inc | Q2 2026 | +199.3 % | - |
| Dna X Inc | Q2 2026 | - | - |
| PEERS TOTAL | +8.6 % | -21.3 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Kyocera'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kyocera Corp | Q1 2016 | +11.6 % | +22.6 % |
| Sitime Corporation | Q2 2026 | +76.6 % | -29.4 % |
| Aktis Oncology Inc | Q2 2026 | - | - |
| Sintx Technologies Inc | Q2 2026 | +85.1 % | - |
| Dna X Inc | Q2 2026 | - | - |
Kyocera's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kyocera Corp | 2.48% | 2.70% | 3.23% |
| Sitime Corporation | 0.88% | 0.91% | 1.27% |
| Aktis Oncology Inc | - | - | - |
| Sintx Technologies Inc | - | - | - |
| Dna X Inc | - | - | - |
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).
Kyocera's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Kyocera Corp | 0.25 | 1.42 |
| Sitime Corporation | 801.76 | 24.49 |
| Aktis Oncology Inc | - | 90.57 |
| Sintx Technologies Inc | - | 5.69 |
| Dna X Inc | - | 0.05 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 50.23 | 2.21 |
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.