The Middleby's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of The Middleby (MIDD) 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: The Middleby vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 3,032M vs 416,077M combined for tracked competitors (0.7% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+15.5% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+5.4%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: The Middleby generated -10.4% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 9.3% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 6.3% net margin compares with 24.3% for the peer group.
- Scale: The Middleby ranks #33 of 143 companies by market capitalization in the Industrial Machinery and Components industry, holding 0.2% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: The Middleby accounted for 0.8% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 1.0% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.34M compares with $0.88M 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).
MIDD Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
The Middleby reported revenue contraction of 10.41 % year on year in Q2 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 9.25 %.
With a net margin of 6.26 %, The Middleby reported lower profitability than its competitors (24.33 %).
The Middleby generated 0.79 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 0.96 % a year earlier.
The Middleby 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 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 The Middleby and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| The Middleby Corporation | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (3) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (9) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (5) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across The Middleby's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Industrial Machinery and Components industry grew revenue 12.4% year over year, combined, vs -10.4% for The Middleby. The Middleby's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.79% to 0.63%, a loss of 0.16 percentage points.
The Middleby'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Middleby Corporation | No | No | No | Yes |
| Competitors combined (3) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (3) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 42.90 % (3 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.
MIDD Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
MIDD Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
MIDD Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
MIDD 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 | Illinois Tool Works Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Whirlpool Corp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for The Middleby's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
The Middleby's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of The Middleby Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| The Middleby Corporation | 4,837.19 | 3,032.43 |
| Illinois Tool Works Inc | 78,589.21 | 16,469.00 |
| Whirlpool Corp | 2,047.28 | 14,921.00 |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc | - | 384,687.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 85,473.68 | 419,109.43 |
Sources: The Middleby 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 The Middleby Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
The Middleby's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Berkshire Hathaway Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Illinois Tool Works Inc. | Named by the company | 85% |
| Duke Manufacturing | Named by the company | 85% |
| Hobart Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Panasonic Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Vulcan-Hart | Named by the company | 85% |
| AMF Bakery Systems | Named by the company | 85% |
| Groen | Named by the company | 85% |
| Marmon Foodservice Technologies | Named by the company | 85% |
| SMEG S.p.A. | Named by the company | 85% |
| AB Electrolux | Named by the company | 85% |
| Duravant | Named by the company | 85% |
| Hoshizaki America, Inc. | Named by the company | 85% |
| ProMach | Named by the company | 85% |
| JBT | Named by the company | 85% |
| Haier Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| Midea Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| The GEA Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| Ali Group S.r.l. | Named by the company | 85% |
| Electrolux | Named by the company | 85% |
| Rational AG | Named by the company | 85% |
| Jbt Marel Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Weber Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Whirlpool Corp | Named by the company | 85% |
| Welbilt inc | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for The Middleby'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.
The Middleby'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 |
|---|---|
| The Middleby Corporation | Commercial Foodservice Equipment Group 73.35 % |
| Illinois Tool Works Inc | Automotive OEM 20.42 % |
| Whirlpool Corp | Major Domestic Appliances, North America 68.47 % |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc | Insurance Corporate and Other 26.83 % |
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).
The Middleby'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Middleby Corporation | 4,837 | 343,579 | -53,399 |
| Illinois Tool Works Inc | 78,589 | 383,000 | 74,279 |
| Whirlpool Corp | 2,047 | 363,927 | 4,707 |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc | - | 991,973 | 221,975 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 80,636 | 881,893 | 189,633 |
The Middleby'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 |
|---|---|
| The Middleby Corporation | United States and Canada 67.13 % |
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.
The Middleby's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 128 companies in The Middleby's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.The Middleby ranks #33 of 128 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.22 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,546, indicating a moderately concentrated market structure (U.S. antitrust guidance: below 1,500 unconcentrated, 1,500 to 2,500 moderately concentrated, above 2,500 highly concentrated).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Asml Holding Nv | 683,986 | 31.64 % |
| 2 | Lam Research Corporation | 396,692 | 18.35 % |
| 3 | Deere and Co | 185,991 | 8.60 % |
| 4 | Eaton Corporation Plc | 171,770 | 7.95 % |
| 5 | Cae Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Bloom Energy Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Illinois Tool Works Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Carrier Global Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Ingersoll Rand Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Nvent Electric Plc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 33 | The Middleby Corporation | 4,824 | 0.22 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of The Middleby's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-09-28.
The Middleby'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 28 | Enersys | 6,695 | 61.78 % |
| 29 | Novanta Inc | 5,842 | 38.09 % |
| 30 | Jbt Marel Corporation | 5,755 | -19.11 % |
| 31 | Symbotic Inc | 5,714 | -16.82 % |
| 32 | Acm Research Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 33 | The Middleby Corporation | 4,824 | -19.19 % |
| 34 | Alliance Laundry Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 35 | Esab Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 36 | Vontier Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 37 | Siteone Landscape Supply Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 38 | Axcelis Technologies Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of The Middleby's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-09-28. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
The Middleby's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Industrial Machinery and Components industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (166 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 39.34 % | 28.58 % (avg) | +10.8 pp |
| Operating Margin | 18.47 % | industry median | +12.8 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 21.13 % | 3.86 % (avg) | +17.3 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | - | 5.98 % (avg) | - |
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.
The Middleby's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Industrial Machinery and Components industry average (166 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.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 33.3x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | 13.5x | 19.5x | -6.0x |
| P/B | 2.6x | 4.0x | -1.4x |
| Return on Equity | -18.30 % | industry aggregate | -33.96 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 7.51 % | 1.28 % (avg) | 6.23 % |
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.
The Middleby's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 16.59 % | 8.69 % | -15.08 % | 29.35 % | 24.05 % | 0.09 % | -4.01 % | -17.38 % |
| Operating Margin | 16.38 % | 17.37 % | 12.91 % | 19.38 % | 15.86 % | 15.73 % | 16.94 % | 17.96 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 8.42 % | 8.38 % | 4.93 % | 8.78 % | 7.85 % | 7.13 % | 6.85 % | 6.40 % |
| P/E | 24.4x | 22.2x | 35.2x | 21.9x | 17.6x | 18.1x | 22.3x | - |
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.
The Middleby's Strategic Group Map
Every company in The Middleby's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. The Middleby 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.
The Middleby's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs The Middleby's largest competitor by market cap) against industry revenue growth, using the standard textbook thresholds (1.0x share, 10% growth) a common framework, not a precision instrument.
The Middleby falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.01x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 7.4% (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.
The Middleby'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 1,546 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See The Middleby's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See The Middleby'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.
The Middleby'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.
The Middleby 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.
The Middleby'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 12.8 points above the industry median.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+15.5% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 34.0 points below the industry aggregate.
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.01x).
- Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below, the standard financial-distress signal.
Opportunities
- A meaningful share of tracked competitors (33.30 %) show financial-distress signals, a possible opening to gain share.
Threats
No rule matched.
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.
The Middleby'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Middleby Corporation | 0.20 | 2.17 | 0.79 |
| Illinois Tool Works Inc | 0.17 | 1.24 | 2.93 |
| Whirlpool Corp | 0.17 | 0.90 | 2.11 |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc | 0.25 | 2.34 | 0.05 |
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.
The Middleby'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Middleby Corporation | Q2 2026 | -10.4 % | -48.3 % |
| Illinois Tool Works Inc | Q2 2026 | +6.1 % | +7.9 % |
| Whirlpool Corp | Q2 2026 | -6.8 % | +17.3 % |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc | Q2 2026 | +10.0 % | +106.9 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +9.1 % | +99.6 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
The Middleby'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Middleby Corporation | Q2 2026 | +12.4 % | -26.8 % |
| Illinois Tool Works Inc | Q2 2026 | -10.5 % | -8.9 % |
| Whirlpool Corp | Q2 2026 | -2.8 % | -93.9 % |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc | Q2 2026 | - | +16.2 % |
The Middleby's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Middleby Corporation | - | - | - |
| Illinois Tool Works Inc | 19.64% | 26.49% | 101.72% |
| Whirlpool Corp | 1.16% | 1.84% | 5.91% |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc | 6.94% | 7.74% | 11.87% |
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).
The Middleby's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| The Middleby Corporation | - | 1.60 |
| Illinois Tool Works Inc | 36.46 | 4.77 |
| Whirlpool Corp | 10.64 | 0.14 |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc | 14.96 | - |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 0.96 | 0.20 |
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.