Nano Magic Inc's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Nano Magic Inc (NMGX) 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: Nano Magic Inc vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 2M vs 320,923M combined for its competitors (0.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+19.9% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs decelerating (-22.3%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Nano Magic Inc generated -2.7% revenue growth year over year in Q3 2024, vs 2.5% for its competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its -220.1% net margin compares with 13.3% for the peer group.
- Scale: Nano Magic Inc ranks #76 of 81 companies by market capitalization in the Chemical Manufacturing industry, holding 0.0% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Nano Magic Inc accounted for 0.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 0.0% a year earlier.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
NMGX Sales vs. its Competitors, Q3 2024
Nano Magic Inc reported revenue contraction of 2.72 % year on year in Q3 2024, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 2.46 %.
With a net margin of -220.08 %, Nano Magic Inc reported lower profitability than its competitors (13.33 %).
Nano Magic Inc generated 0.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 0.00 % a year earlier.
API endpoints for this dataset
Nano Magic Inc vs. its Competitors, Q3 2024
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 Nano Magic Inc 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 Nano Magic Inc and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Nano Magic Inc | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (5) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Nano Magic Inc's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Chemical Manufacturing industry grew revenue 2.0% year over year, combined, vs -2.7% for Nano Magic Inc. Nano Magic Inc's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.00% to 0.00%, a gain of 0.00 percentage points.
Nano Magic Inc's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nano Magic Inc | - | No | No | Yes |
| Competitors combined (15) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (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.
NMGX Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
NMGX Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size 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 | Newell Brands Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Sealed Air Corp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Johnson and Johnson | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Church and Dwight Co Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Nano Magic Inc's best-performing competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Nano Magic Inc's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of Nano Magic Inc
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Nano Magic Inc |
0.00 | 2.14 |
 Johnson and Johnson |
694,227.07 | 99,335.00 |
 Procter and Gamble Co |
404,650.32 | 87,922.00 |
 Ecolab Inc |
85,874.06 | 17,679.70 |
 Colgate palmolive Company |
78,290.63 | 21,284.00 |
 Church and Dwight Co Inc |
26,669.95 | 6,245.30 |
| SUBTOTAL | 1,319,145.05 | 320,924.89 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Nano Magic Inc .
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Nano Magic Inc versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Nano Magic Inc's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Nano Magic Inc reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Amcon Laboratories | Company report | 85% |
| Hilco Accessories | Company report | 85% |
| OptiSource | Company report | 85% |
| Carl Zeiss | Company report | 85% |
| Prosben, Inc. | Company report | 85% |
| California Accessories | Company report | 85% |
| Northern Technologies International Corporation | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Nano Magic Inc's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Nano Magic Inc'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 |
|---|---|
| Johnson and Johnson | Oncology 29.93 % |
| Procter and Gamble Co | Fabric & Home Care 35.25 % |
| Ecolab Inc | Water Services 51.14 % |
| Colgate palmolive Company | Oral, Personal and Home Care 77.56 % |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | Consumer Domestic 76.47 % |
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).
Nano Magic Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nano Magic Inc | 0 | - | - |
| Johnson and Johnson | 694,227 | 705,504 | 114,311 |
| Procter and Gamble Co | 404,650 | 845,404 | 154,750 |
| Ecolab Inc | 85,874 | 368,327 | 43,650 |
| Colgate palmolive Company | 78,291 | 633,452 | 63,899 |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | 26,670 | 1,125,279 | 139,604 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 1,319,145 | 629,699 | 97,410 |
Nano Magic Inc'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 |
|---|---|
| Johnson and Johnson | United States 58.90 % |
| Procter and Gamble Co | Non-US 52.05 % |
| Sealed Air Corp | Americas 64.01 % |
| Wd 40 Company | Non-US 65.69 % |
| Newell Brands Inc | North America 66.36 % |
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.
Nano Magic Inc's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 75 companies in Nano Magic Inc's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Nano Magic Inc ranks #76 of 75 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.00 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 2,492, indicating a moderately concentrated market structure (see Methodology: Market Structure & Concentration).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Linde Plc | 242,709 | 47.09 % |
| 2 | Air Products And Chemicals Inc | 70,449 | 13.67 % |
| 3 | Ppg Industries Inc | 27,394 | 5.31 % |
| 4 | International Flavors and Fragrances Inc | 20,658 | 4.01 % |
| 5 | Lyondellbasell Industries N v | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Rpm International Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Element Solutions Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Westlake Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Axalta Coating Systems Ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Newmarket Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 76 | Nano Magic Inc | 0 | 0.00 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Nano Magic Inc's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-11-11.
Nano Magic Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 71 | Loop Industries Inc | 10 | -81.48 % |
| 72 | Pure Bioscience Inc | 8 | - |
| 73 | Gulf Resources Inc | 5 | - |
| 74 | Cn Energy Group Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 75 | Tantech Holdings Ltd | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 76 | Nano Magic Inc | 0 | - |
| 77 | Enerteck Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 78 | Bolt Projects Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Nano Magic Inc's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-11-12. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Nano Magic Inc's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Chemical Manufacturing industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (116 companies). See the full Chemical Manufacturing industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 2.41 % | 23.14 % (avg) | -20.7 pp |
| Operating Margin | - | industry median | - |
| EBITDA Margin | - | 1.27 % (avg) | - |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 0.79 % | 7.76 % (avg) | -7.0 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.
Nano Magic Inc's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Chemical Manufacturing industry average (116 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 Chemical Manufacturing industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 26.6x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | - | 13.4x | - |
| P/B | 26.8x | 3.8x | +23.0x |
| Return on Equity | -871.14 % | industry aggregate | -881.37 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -207.51 % | -0.97 % (avg) | -206.54 % |
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.
Nano Magic Inc's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in company reports.| Metric | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | -16.20 % | -2.93 % | -45.03 % | -43.75 % | 95.37 % | 5.89 % | -45.54 % | -13.87 % |
| Operating Margin | -9.20 % | -9.14 % | -7.35 % | -42.33 % | -16.65 % | -35.04 % | - | - |
| Return on Invested Capital | - | - | - | - | -35.18 % | -26.94 % | -62.41 % | -72.92 % |
| P/E | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
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.
Nano Magic Inc's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
See Methodology: BCG Growth-Share Matrix for how relative share and growth are calculated and thresholded.
Nano Magic Inc falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.00x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 2.4% (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. A caveat worth reading alongside this chart: Linde Plc alone holds 47% 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.
Nano Magic Inc'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 2,492 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | Lower than typical for the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 0.79 % vs industry average 7.76 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Nano Magic Inc's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Nano Magic Inc's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Nano Magic Inc falls in the Low attractiveness / Low strength cell: Harvest / Divest.
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.
Nano Magic Inc'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 (+19.9% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 881.4 points below the industry aggregate.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.00x).
- Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below, the standard financial-distress signal.
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- Industry dominated by Linde Plc, holding 47.09 % of industry market cap.
- Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-22.3% annualized).
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Nano Magic Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nano Magic Inc | 0.13 | 0.75 | 1.18 |
| Johnson and Johnson | 0.36 | 1.04 | 0.60 |
| Procter and Gamble Co | 0.26 | 0.71 | 0.71 |
| Ecolab Inc | 0.29 | 1.26 | 1.72 |
| Colgate palmolive Company | 0.22 | 0.96 | 15.33 |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | 0.27 | 1.09 | 0.55 |
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.
Nano Magic Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nano Magic Inc | Q3 2024 | -2.7 % | - |
| Johnson and Johnson | Q3 2026 | +5.9 % | -95.9 % |
| Procter and Gamble Co | Q3 2026 | +4.0 % | -1.0 % |
| Ecolab Inc | Q3 2026 | +16.4 % | -6.5 % |
| Colgate palmolive Company | Q3 2026 | +4.6 % | -2.0 % |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | Q3 2026 | +1.1 % | +16.5 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +3.5 % | -3.6 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Nano Magic Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nano Magic Inc | Q3 2024 | +7.0 % | -78.4 % |
| Johnson and Johnson | Q3 2026 | +10.9 % | +17.7 % |
| Procter and Gamble Co | Q3 2026 | +7.3 % | +13.8 % |
| Ecolab Inc | Q3 2026 | +14.2 % | +19.8 % |
| Colgate palmolive Company | Q3 2026 | +2.6 % | -13.5 % |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | Q3 2026 | -2.1 % | +5.7 % |
Nano Magic Inc's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nano Magic Inc | - | - | - |
| Johnson and Johnson | 8.06% | 10.53% | 19.55% |
| Procter and Gamble Co | 12.54% | 17.47% | 29.71% |
| Ecolab Inc | 7.57% | 7.61% | 20.76% |
| Colgate palmolive Company | 12.92% | 20.06% | 417.50% |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | 8.52% | 9.23% | 18.21% |
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).
Nano Magic Inc's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Nano Magic Inc | - | 0.00 |
| Johnson and Johnson | 42.89 | 6.99 |
| Procter and Gamble Co | 25.43 | 4.60 |
| Ecolab Inc | 41.53 | 4.86 |
| Colgate palmolive Company | 38.31 | 3.68 |
| Church and Dwight Co Inc | 34.48 | 4.27 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 26.57 | 4.11 |
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.