Marcus's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Marcus (MCS) 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: Marcus vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 817M vs 67,952M combined for its competitors (1.2% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+16.3% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+6.7%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Marcus generated 13.1% revenue growth year over year in Q3 2026, vs 12.1% for its competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 7.9% net margin compares with 13.4% for the peer group.
- Scale: Marcus ranks #15 of 46 companies by market capitalization in the Movies and Entertainment industry, holding 0.7% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Marcus accounted for 1.3% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 1.3% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.10M compares with $0.10M for the peer group (1.0x).
- Structure: Marcus operates in the following segments: Theatres, Hotels/Resorts, Corporate and Unallocated.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
MCS Sales vs. its Competitors, Q3 2026
Marcus reported revenue growth of 13.13 % year on year in Q3 2026, above its competitors' combined revenue growth of 12.11 %.
With a net margin of 7.89 %, Marcus reported lower profitability than its competitors (13.43 %).
Marcus generated 1.30 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 1.28 % a year earlier.
API endpoints for this dataset
Marcus vs. its Competitors, Q3 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 Marcus 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 Marcus and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Marcus Corp | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (2) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (6) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Marcus's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Movies and Entertainment industry grew revenue 15.2% year over year, combined, vs 13.1% for Marcus. Marcus's share of combined industry revenue moved from 1.04% to 1.02%, a loss of 0.02 percentage points.
Marcus's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus Corp | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Competitors combined (19) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (3) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 75.00 % (6 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 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.
MCS Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
MCS Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
MCS Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
MCS 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 | European Wax Center Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Xenia Hotels and Resorts Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Park Hotels and Resorts Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Marriott International Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Intercontinental Hotels Group Plc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Marcus's best-performing competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Marcus's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Our movie theatres compete with large national movie theatre operators, such as AMC Entertainment, Cinemark and Regal Cinemas, as well as with a wide array of smaller first-run exhibitors. Movie exhibitors also faced increased competition during the pandemic from a number of other movie exhibition delivery systems, such as streaming services, premium video-on-demand (PVOD), digital downloads, video-on-demand, pay-per-view television, DVDs and network and syndicated television. We also face competition from other forms of entertainment competing for the public?s leisure time and disposable income.
Our hotels and resorts compete with the hotels and resorts operated and/or franchised by Hyatt Corporation, Marriott Corporation, Hilton Worldwide and others, along with other regional and local hotels and resorts. Increasingly, we also face competition from new channels of distribution in the travel industry, such as peer-to-peer inventory sources that allow travelers to book stays on websites that facilitate short-term rental of homes and apartments from owners, thereby providing an alternative to hotel rooms, such as Airbnb, Vrbo and HomeAway. We compete for hotel management agreements with a wide variety of national, regional and local management companies based upon many factors, including the value and quality of our management services, our reputation, our ability and willingness to invest our capital in joint venture projects, the level of our management fees and our relationships with property owners and investors.
Publicly Traded Peers of Marcus Corp
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Marcus Corp |
837.85 | 817.40 |
 Marriott International Inc |
108,398.00 | 27,420.00 |
 Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc |
83,045.96 | 12,690.00 |
 Intercontinental Hotels Group Plc |
27,818.09 | 5,189.00 |
 Synchrony Financial |
23,967.22 | 16,537.00 |
 Hyatt Hotels Corporation |
17,586.47 | 7,109.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 313,056.65 | 96,250.37 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Marcus Corp.
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Marcus Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Marcus's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Marcus reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Distribution Solutions Group Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Marriott Corporation | Company report | 85% |
| Hyatt Corporation | Company report | 85% |
| Newmark Group Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Synchrony Financial | Company report | 85% |
| Essex Property Trust Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Homeaway Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Reading International Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Cinemark Holdings Inc | Company report | 85% |
| National Cinemedia Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Wyndham Hotels and Resorts inc | Company report | 85% |
| Amc Entertainment Holdings Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Intercontinental Hotels Group Plc | Company report | 85% |
| Choice Hotels International Inc | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Marcus's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Marcus'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 |
|---|---|
| Marcus Corp | Theatres 60.99 % |
| Marriott International Inc | U.S. and Canada 72.32 % |
| Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc | Management and Franchise 30.44 % |
| Hyatt Hotels Corporation | Management and franchising 75.39 % |
| Wyndham Hotels and Resorts inc | Hotel Franchising 100.00 % |
| Choice Hotels International Inc | Franchising and Management 91.11 % |
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).
Marcus'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus Corp | 838 | 97,426 | 3,004 |
| Marriott International Inc | 108,398 | 66,232 | 6,408 |
| Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc | 83,046 | 69,725 | 9,335 |
| Intercontinental Hotels Group Plc | 27,818 | 83,693,548 | 12,241,935 |
| Synchrony Financial | 23,967 | 826,850 | 164,550 |
| Hyatt Hotels Corporation | 17,586 | 29,376 | 781 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 312,219 | 101,473 | 10,007 |
Marcus'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 |
|---|---|
| Cinemark Holdings Inc | US 80.12 % |
| Newmark Group Inc | United States 87.30 % |
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.
Marcus's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 38 companies in Marcus's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Marcus ranks #15 of 38 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.75 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,703, indicating a moderately concentrated market structure (see Methodology: Market Structure & Concentration).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Live Nation Entertainment Inc | 42,809 | 38.77 % |
| 3 | Liberty Live Holdings inc | 9,215 | 8.35 % |
| 4 | Churchill Downs Inc | 6,686 | 6.06 % |
| 5 | Warner Music Group Corp | 4,698 | 4.25 % |
| 6 | Cinemark Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Sphere Entertainment Co | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Manchester United Plc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Lionsgate Studios Corp | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Atlanta Braves Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 11 | Fubotv Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 15 | Marcus Corp | 826 | 0.75 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Marcus's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-11-06.
Marcus'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Atlanta Braves Holdings Inc | 3,542 | 27.57 % |
| 11 | Fubotv Inc | 2,470 | -84.60 % |
| 12 | Amc Entertainment Holdings Inc | 2,260 | 25.22 % |
| 13 | Accel Entertainment Inc | 1,117 | 32.05 % |
| 14 | Six Flags Entertainment Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 15 | Marcus Corp | 826 | 72.58 % |
| 16 | Buuu Group Limited | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 17 | Reservoir Media inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 18 | Angel Studios inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 19 | Lucky Strike Entertainment Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 20 | Gamesquare Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Marcus's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-11-06. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Marcus's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Movies and Entertainment industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (55 companies). See the full Movies and Entertainment industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 5.95 % | 31.26 % (avg) | -25.3 pp |
| Operating Margin | 4.87 % | industry median | -10.3 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 19.08 % | 6.64 % (avg) | +12.4 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 6.00 % | 6.68 % (avg) | -0.7 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.
Marcus's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Movies and Entertainment industry average (55 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 Movies and Entertainment industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 35.8x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | 6.3x | 13.2x | -6.9x |
| P/B | 1.9x | 3.6x | -1.8x |
| Return on Equity | 5.49 % | industry aggregate | -23.43 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 3.34 % | -3.26 % (avg) | 6.60 % |
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.
Marcus'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 | 12.22 % | 16.09 % | -71.04 % | 92.79 % | 47.82 % | 7.70 % | 0.82 % | 3.11 % |
| Operating Margin | 11.76 % | 8.31 % | -75.07 % | -9.05 % | 1.23 % | 4.65 % | 2.20 % | 2.25 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 6.29 % | 3.78 % | -9.94 % | -2.84 % | 0.66 % | 2.90 % | 1.50 % | 1.59 % |
| P/E | 22.4x | 23.8x | - | - | - | 46.8x | - | 37.2x |
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.
Marcus's Strategic Group Map
Marcus 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.
Marcus's trailing-12-month revenue growth of 8.5% and operating margin of 4.9% compares with an average of 8.0% growth and 5.2% margin across its 8 closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC -- Marcus sits above 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.
Marcus's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
See Methodology: BCG Growth-Share Matrix for how relative share and growth are calculated and thresholded.
Marcus falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.02x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 5.8% (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. A caveat worth reading alongside this chart: Live Nation Entertainment Inc alone holds 39% of this industry's market cap. In an industry this dominated by one leader, the framework will place nearly every OTHER company in "Dog" or "Question Mark" purely because relative share is measured against that leader, regardless of how strong those other companies actually are on their own fundamentals. Check the Profitability, Valuation and Financial Strength sections above before treating this quadrant label as a verdict.
Marcus'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 | Moderate | Industry HHI of 1,703 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | Moderate, in line with the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 6.00 % vs industry average 6.68 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Marcus's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Marcus's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Marcus falls in the Medium attractiveness / Medium 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.
Marcus'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 (+16.3% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Outperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
Weaknesses
- Operating margin 10.3 points below the industry median.
- Return on equity 23.4 points below the industry aggregate.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.02x).
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- Industry dominated by Live Nation Entertainment Inc , holding 38.77 % of industry market cap.
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Marcus'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus Corp | 0.19 | 0.46 | 0.34 |
| Marriott International Inc | 0.05 | 0.49 | - |
| Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc | 0.18 | 0.63 | - |
| Intercontinental Hotels Group Plc | 0.54 | 0.98 | - |
| Synchrony Financial | 0.36 | 2.44 | 0.98 |
| Hyatt Hotels Corporation | 0.18 | 0.65 | 1.81 |
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.
Marcus'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus Corp | Q3 2026 | +13.1 % | +15.6 % |
| Marriott International Inc | Q3 2026 | +8.0 % | +9.1 % |
| Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc | Q3 2026 | +6.6 % | +27.3 % |
| Intercontinental Hotels Group Plc | Q4 2025 | +5.4 % | +20.9 % |
| Synchrony Financial | Q3 2026 | +32.8 % | -15.6 % |
| Hyatt Hotels Corporation | Q3 2026 | -2.4 % | - |
| PEERS TOTAL | +10.7 % | +3.6 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Marcus'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus Corp | Q3 2026 | +2,976.9 % | -52.1 % |
| Marriott International Inc | Q3 2026 | +3,116.3 % | -9.2 % |
| Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc | Q3 2026 | - | +10.0 % |
| Intercontinental Hotels Group Plc | Q4 2025 | +4.5 % | -3.4 % |
| Synchrony Financial | Q3 2026 | +10.5 % | - |
| Hyatt Hotels Corporation | Q3 2026 | +404.3 % | -68.1 % |
Marcus's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus Corp | 2.50% | 3.44% | 5.49% |
| Marriott International Inc | 9.52% | 13.29% | - |
| Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc | 10.16% | 13.50% | - |
| Intercontinental Hotels Group Plc | 14.20% | - | - |
| Synchrony Financial | 2.71% | 4.43% | 19.74% |
| Hyatt Hotels Corporation | 1.36% | 1.40% | 5.27% |
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).
Marcus's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Marcus Corp | 61.85 | 1.03 |
| Marriott International Inc | 41.50 | 3.95 |
| Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc | 49.79 | 6.54 |
| Intercontinental Hotels Group Plc | 36.70 | 5.36 |
| Synchrony Financial | 7.83 | 1.45 |
| Hyatt Hotels Corporation | 97.09 | 2.47 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 33.17 | 3.25 |
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.