Universal Display's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Universal Display (OLED) 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: Universal Display vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 607M vs 1,933M combined for tracked competitors (23.9% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is holding steady (+0.3% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+8.1%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Universal Display generated -11.3% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 13.5% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 32.5% net margin compares with 14.9% for the peer group.
- Scale: Universal Display ranks #23 of 71 companies by market capitalization in the IT Infrastructure industry, holding 0.4% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Universal Display accounted for 22.6% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 27.2% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $1.29M compares with $0.46M for the peer group (2.8x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
OLED Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Universal Display reported revenue contraction of 11.33 % year on year in Q2 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 13.54 %.
With a net margin of 32.49 %, Universal Display achieved higher profitability than its competitors (14.87 %).
Universal Display generated 22.55 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 27.16 % a year earlier.
Universal Display 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 Universal Display and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (5) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Universal Display's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the IT Infrastructure industry grew revenue 21.0% year over year, combined, vs -11.3% for Universal Display. Universal Display's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.31% to 0.23%, a loss of 0.08 percentage points.
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | Yes | No | No | No |
| Competitors combined (2) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 75.00 % (6 of 8) | 12.50 % (1 of 8) | 16.70 % (1 of 6) |
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.
OLED Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
OLED Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
OLED 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 | Outfront Media Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Lg Display Co Ltd | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Universal Display's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Universal Display's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Display Panel Industry Competitors
Numerous domestic and foreign companies have developed or are developing and improving LCD, which includes quantum dot LCDs (which are sometimes referred to as QLEDs), and other display technologies that compete with our OLED display technologies. We believe that OLED display technologies can compete with LCDs, QLEDs and other display technologies for many product applications on the basis of lower power consumption, better contrast ratios, faster video rates, form factor and lower manufacturing cost. However, other companies may succeed in continuing to improve these competing display technologies, or in developing new display technologies, that are superior to OLED display technologies in various respects. We cannot predict the timing or extent to which such improvements or developments may occur.
Lighting Industry Competitors
Although there has been a movement to phase out traditional incandescent bulbs throughout many countries, traditional incandescent bulbs and fluorescent lamps remain well-entrenched products in the lighting industry. In addition, compact fluorescent lamps and solid-state LEDs have been introduced into the market and would compete with OLED lighting products. LEDs have realized significant market adoption in the general lighting market. Having attributes different from fluorescent lamps and LEDs, OLEDs may compete directly with these products for certain lighting applications. However, manufacturers of LEDs and compact fluorescent lamps may succeed in more broadly adapting their products to various lighting applications, or others may develop competing solid-state lighting technologies that are superior to OLEDs. Again, we cannot predict whether or when this might occur.
OLED Technologies and Materials Competitors
Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) developed and patented the original fluorescent OLED technology in 1987. Cambridge Display Technology, Ltd. (CDT), which was acquired by Sumitomo Chemical Company in 2007, developed and patented polymer OLED technology in 1989. Display and lighting manufacturers, including customers of ours, are engaged in their own OLED research, development and commercialization activities, and have developed and may continue to develop proprietary OLED technologies that are necessary or useful for commercial OLED devices. In addition, other material manufacturers, such as Sumitomo, Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. (Idemitsu Kosan), Merck KGaA, Cynora Gmbh and Kyulux Inc., are selling or sampling competing OLED materials to customers, including companies to which we sell our proprietary PHOLED materials.
Our licensing business is based on our control of a broad portfolio of OLED-related device patents and technologies. We believe this portfolio includes fundamental patents in the field of phosphorescent OLED materials and devices, as well as certain additional complementary OLED technologies. As discussed above, alternative technologies, such as fluorescent OLED emitter materials, exist and could be competitive to our phosphorescent OLED material solutions. However, fluorescent materials have characteristics that we believe many market participants consider less desirable than those of phosphorescent materials. Suppliers of fluorescent emitter materials include Doosan Solus, Dow Chemical (previously Gracel Display), Idemitsu Kosan and SFC Co. Ltd. Fluorescent materials may also be viewed as complementary in that they can be used in the same OLED stack as phosphorescent materials.
The competitive landscape with respect to our host materials business is characterized by a larger number of established chemical material suppliers who have long-term relationships with many of our existing customers and licensees. We have elected to partner with certain of these companies to manufacture and deliver host solutions to our customers, as well as selling our host materials directly to device manufacturers. We believe our competitive advantage stems, in part, from our deep knowledge of our phosphorescent emitter materials, which are complementary with the host solutions. We believe that our understanding of phosphorescent emitter materials enables us to create host material solutions that are especially well suited for use with a certain class of emitter materials that are implemented commercially today. However, we note that many of our technology partners have their own host solutions and the competitive landscape includes many well-established companies such as Solus, Advanced Materials Co., Dow Chemical, Duksan Neolux Co., Ltd., Idemitsu Kosan, Merck KGaA, NSCC and Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. These companies have significant resources, and some may aggressively pursue such business in the future.
Our existing business relationships with SDC and other product manufacturers suggest that our OLED technologies and materials, particularly our PHOLED technologies and materials, may achieve a significant level of market penetration in the display and lighting industries. However, others, such as those working to develop thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) and micro-LED alternative technologies, may succeed in developing new OLED technologies, materials and alternative solutions that may supplement or be utilized in place of ours. We cannot be sure of the extent to which product manufacturers will adopt and continue to utilize our OLED technologies and materials for the production of commercial displays and lighting products.
Publicly Traded Peers of Universal Display Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | 3,523.10 | 607.00 |
| Outfront Media Inc | 4,954.03 | 1,932.90 |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | - | 24,003.38 |
| SUBTOTAL | 8,477.12 | 26,543.27 |
Sources: Universal Display 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 Universal Display Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Universal Display's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Materials Competitors Eastman Kodak Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| SFC Co. Ltd | Named by the company | 85% |
| Idemitsu Kosan Co | Named by the company | 85% |
| Samsung SDI Co. Ltd | Named by the company | 85% |
| Cambridge Display Technology | Named by the company | 85% |
| Advanced Materials Co | Named by the company | 85% |
| Kyulux Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Sumitomo Chemical Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Duksan Neolux Co | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Universal Display'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.
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|
| Outfront Media Inc | Billboard Operating 77.49 % |
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).
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | 3,523 | 1,294,239 | 417,262 |
| Outfront Media Inc | 4,954 | 973,263 | 123,464 |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | - | 445,406 | 5,243 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 4,954 | 464,167 | 9,445 |
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | KR 65.57 % |
| Outfront Media Inc | United States 100.00 % |
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.
Universal Display's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 66 companies in Universal Display's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Universal Display ranks #23 of 66 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.40 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,234, indicating a unconcentrated 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 | Amphenol Corporation | 218,184 | 24.50 % |
| 2 | Danaher Corporation | 160,859 | 18.06 % |
| 3 | Vertiv Holdings Co | 95,846 | 10.76 % |
| 4 | Teradyne Inc | 63,282 | 7.11 % |
| 5 | Keysight Technologies inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Ametek Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Roper Technologies Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Hubbell Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Veralto Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Mks Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 23 | Universal Display Corporation | 3,523 | 0.40 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Universal Display'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.
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 | Materion Corporation | 5,521 | 123.28 % |
| 19 | Impinj Inc | 5,484 | -1.45 % |
| 20 | Vishay Intertechnology Inc | 4,767 | 111.21 % |
| 21 | Mercury Systems Inc | 4,764 | 9.46 % |
| 22 | Itron Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 23 | Universal Display Corporation | 3,523 | -46.85 % |
| 24 | Cohu Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 25 | Aehr Test Systems | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 26 | Neogenomics Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 27 | Allient Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 28 | Trimas Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Universal Display'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.
Universal Display's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the IT Infrastructure industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (79 companies). See the full IT Infrastructure industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 75.32 % | 39.24 % (avg) | +36.1 pp |
| Operating Margin | 34.06 % | industry median | +30.7 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 46.82 % | 5.24 % (avg) | +41.6 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 15.18 % | 3.72 % (avg) | +11.5 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.
Universal Display's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the IT Infrastructure industry average (79 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 IT Infrastructure industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | 21.2x | 39.9x | -18.7x |
| EV / EBITDA | 12.8x | 20.9x | -8.2x |
| P/B | 2.4x | 4.7x | -2.3x |
| Return on Equity | 11.35 % | industry aggregate | -2.30 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 5.84 % | -0.81 % (avg) | 6.65 % |
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.
Universal Display'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 | -26.28 % | 63.76 % | 5.85 % | 29.07 % | 11.40 % | -6.58 % | 12.35 % | 0.50 % |
| Operating Margin | 22.93 % | 39.08 % | 36.73 % | 41.13 % | 43.32 % | 37.70 % | 36.90 % | 38.21 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 4.01 % | 9.53 % | 8.27 % | 10.19 % | 10.45 % | 7.63 % | 7.45 % | 7.04 % |
| P/E | 75.1x | 69.0x | 82.2x | 41.1x | 25.8x | 40.8x | 34.1x | 23.7x |
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.
Universal Display's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Universal Display's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Universal Display 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.
Universal Display's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Universal Display'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.
Universal Display falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.02x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 8.6% (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.
Universal Display'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 | High | Industry HHI of 1,234 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | High (capital intensive) | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 15.18 % vs industry average 3.72 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Universal Display's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Universal Display'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.
Universal Display'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.
Universal Display falls in the Low attractiveness / Medium strength cell: Harvest.
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.
Universal Display'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 30.7 points above the industry median.
Weaknesses
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.02x).
Opportunities
- Trades at a lower P/E than the industry average (21.2x vs 39.9x) despite a higher return on invested capital -- a possible re-rating opportunity.
Threats
- 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.
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | 1.27 | 9.40 | 0.00 |
| Outfront Media Inc | 0.12 | 0.80 | 3.94 |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | 0.16 | 0.73 | 0.06 |
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.
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | Q2 2026 | -11.3 % | -26.5 % |
| Outfront Media Inc | Q2 2026 | +13.5 % | +298.5 % |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | Q4 2025 | +22.9 % | - |
| PEERS TOTAL | +22.4 % | - |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | Q2 2026 | -5.7 % | -68.0 % |
| Outfront Media Inc | Q2 2026 | +6.3 % | -33.1 % |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | Q4 2025 | +17.6 % | -19.8 % |
Universal Display's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | 10.17% | 10.78% | 11.35% |
| Outfront Media Inc | 4.66% | 4.04% | 37.60% |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | 1.13% | 1.75% | 3.88% |
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).
Universal Display's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | 18.26 | 5.80 |
| Outfront Media Inc | 19.25 | 2.56 |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | - | - |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 11.72 | 0.32 |
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.