Pure Cycle's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Pure Cycle (PCYO) 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: Pure Cycle vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 34M vs 11,431M combined for its competitors (0.3% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-2.5% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+33.0%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Pure Cycle generated 60.0% revenue growth year over year in Q3 2026, vs 118.0% for its competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 35.9% net margin compares with 12.1% for the peer group.
- Scale: Pure Cycle ranks #11 of 13 companies by market capitalization in the Water Supply industry, holding 0.5% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Pure Cycle accounted for 0.2% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 0.3% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.77M compares with $1.05M for the peer group (0.7x).
- Structure: Pure Cycle operates in the following segments: Water and Wastewater Resource Development Segment, Land Development Segment, Single Family Rentals.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
PCYO Sales vs. its Competitors, Q3 2026
Pure Cycle reported revenue growth of 59.96 % year on year in Q3 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 118.03 %.
With a net margin of 35.86 %, Pure Cycle achieved higher profitability than its competitors (12.07 %).
Pure Cycle generated 0.22 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 0.29 % a year earlier.
API endpoints for this dataset
Pure Cycle 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 Pure Cycle 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 Pure Cycle and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Pure Cycle Corporation | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (6) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (6) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Pure Cycle's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Water Supply industry grew revenue 29.7% year over year, combined, vs 60.0% for Pure Cycle. Pure Cycle's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.05% to 0.07%, a gain of 0.01 percentage points.
Pure Cycle's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pure Cycle Corporation | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Competitors combined (8) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (7) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 87.50 % (7 of 8) | 87.50 % (7 of 8) | 25.00 % (2 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.
PCYO Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
PCYO Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
PCYO 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 | H2o America | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | American States Water Co | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | American Water Works Company Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Middlesex Water Company | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | California Water Service Group | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Pure Cycle's best-performing competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Pure Cycle's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
the purchase of water and wastewater taps in exchange for our obligation to
construct certain Wholesale Facilities;
the establishment of payment terms, timing, capacity and location of Special
Facilities (if any); and
specific terms related to our provision of ongoing water and wastewater services
to our local governmental customers as well as the governmental entitys end-use
customers.
Although we have exclusive long-term water and wastewater service contracts
for 24,000 acres of the 27,000-acre Lowry Range pursuant to the Service Agreement,
providing water and wastewater services to areas other than Sky Ranch and the
majority of the Lowry Range is subject to competition. Alternate sources of
water are available, principally from other private parties, such as farmers
or others owning water rights that have historically been used for agriculture,
and from municipalities seeking to annex new development areas in order to increase
their tax base. Our principal competition in areas close to the Lowry Range
is the City of Aurora. Principal factors affecting competition for potential
purchasers of our Export Water include the availability of water for the particular
purpose, the cost of delivering the water to the desired location (including
the cost of required taps), and the reliability of the water supply during drought
periods. We estimate that the water assets we own and have the exclusive right
to use have a supply capacity of approximately 59,400 SFE units, and we believe
they provide us with a significant competitive advantage along the Front Range.
Our legal rights to the Rangeview Water Supply have been confirmed for municipal
use and a significant portion of our water supply is close to Denver area water
users. Our pricing structure is competitive and our water portfolio is well
balanced with senior surface water rights, groundwater rights, storage capacity
and reclaimed water supplies.
Publicly Traded Peers of Pure Cycle Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Pure Cycle Corporation |
262.89 | 33.73 |
 American Water Works Company Inc |
29,788.31 | 8,195.00 |
 American States Water Co |
3,569.60 | 698.76 |
 California Water Service Group |
3,162.60 | 1,272.77 |
 H2o America |
2,734.79 | 838.18 |
 Middlesex Water Company |
1,139.09 | 212.26 |
| SUBTOTAL | 41,850.00 | 11,464.93 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Pure Cycle Corporation.
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Pure Cycle Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Pure Cycle's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Pure Cycle reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Artesian Resources Corporation | Company report | 85% |
| American States Water Co | Company report | 85% |
| Middlesex Water Company | Company report | 85% |
| York Water Co | Company report | 85% |
| H2o America | Company report | 85% |
| California Water Service Group | Company report | 85% |
| Cadiz Inc | Company report | 85% |
| American Water Works Company Inc | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Pure Cycle's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Pure Cycle'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 |
|---|---|
| Pure Cycle Corporation | Water and Wastewater Resource Development Segment 56.67 % |
| American Water Works Company Inc | Regulated Business 46.31 % |
| H2o America | Water Utility Services 98.16 % |
| Middlesex Water Company | Regulated 95.12 % |
| Artesian Resources Corporation | Regulated Utility 92.75 % |
| Cadiz Inc | Water Treatment 78.06 % |
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).
Pure Cycle'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pure Cycle Corporation | 263 | 766,500 | 334,682 |
| American Water Works Company Inc | 29,788 | 1,170,714 | 162,286 |
| American States Water Co | 3,570 | 776,399 | 158,841 |
| California Water Service Group | 3,163 | 952,671 | 102,828 |
| H2o America | 2,735 | 1,001,412 | 125,288 |
| Middlesex Water Company | 1,139 | 537,354 | 131,661 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 41,587 | 1,048,542 | 145,359 |
Sign in to see all peers for Pure Cycle Corporation.
Pure Cycle's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 13 companies in Pure Cycle's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Pure Cycle ranks #11 of 13 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.48 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 3,524, indicating a highly concentrated market structure (see Methodology: Market Structure & Concentration).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | American Water Works Company Inc | 29,457 | 53.56 % |
| 2 | Essential Utilities Inc | 12,912 | 23.48 % |
| 3 | American States Water Co | 3,552 | 6.46 % |
| 4 | California Water Service Group | 3,085 | 5.61 % |
| 5 | H2o America | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Middlesex Water Company | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | York Water Co | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Consolidated Water Co ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Artesian Resources Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Cadiz Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 11 | Pure Cycle Corporation | 263 | 0.48 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Pure Cycle'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.
Pure Cycle'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Middlesex Water Company | 1,122 | 10.89 % |
| 7 | York Water Co | 518 | -1.59 % |
| 8 | Consolidated Water Co ltd | 438 | -23.13 % |
| 9 | Artesian Resources Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 10 | Cadiz Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 11 | Pure Cycle Corporation | 263 | -2.73 % |
| 12 | Global Water Resources Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 13 | Companhia De Saneamento Basico Do Estado De Sao Paulo sabesp | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Pure Cycle'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.
Pure Cycle's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Water Supply industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (15 companies). See the full Water Supply industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 0.62 % | 51.38 % (avg) | -50.8 pp |
| Operating Margin | 0.47 % | industry median | -25.6 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 0.54 % | 36.67 % (avg) | -36.1 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | - | 38.96 % (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.
Pure Cycle's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Water Supply industry average (15 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 Water Supply industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | 17.8x | 28.6x | -10.8x |
| EV / EBITDA | 11.6x | 14.8x | -3.1x |
| P/B | 1.8x | 3.4x | -1.6x |
| Return on Equity | 0.10 % | industry aggregate | -9.30 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 0.10 % | 2.37 % (avg) | -2.27 % |
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.
Pure Cycle'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 | 342.49 % | 207.59 % | -26.98 % | -18.42 % | 21.42 % | -1.91 % | 48.97 % | 0.48 % |
| Operating Margin | 4.55 % | 12.50 % | 7.29 % | 35.06 % | 35.51 % | 27.01 % | 41.62 % | 35.07 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 0.29 % | 2.33 % | 0.90 % | 2.81 % | 3.18 % | 2.21 % | 4.70 % | 3.59 % |
| P/E | - | - | - | 16.7x | 28.7x | 35.0x | - | 19.9x |
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.
Pure Cycle's Strategic Group Map
Pure Cycle 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.
Pure Cycle's trailing-12-month revenue growth of 22.9% and operating margin of 0.5% compares with an average of 10.8% growth and 20.7% margin across its 8 closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC -- Pure Cycle 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.
Pure Cycle's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
See Methodology: BCG Growth-Share Matrix for how relative share and growth are calculated and thresholded.
Pure Cycle falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.01x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 9.8% (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: American Water Works Company Inc alone holds 54% 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.
Pure Cycle'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 | Low | Industry HHI of 3,524 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Pure Cycle's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Pure Cycle's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Pure Cycle falls in the High attractiveness / Medium strength cell: Invest / Grow.
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.
Pure Cycle'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
No rule matched.
Weaknesses
- Operating margin 25.6 points below the industry median.
- Return on equity 9.3 points below the industry aggregate.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-2.5% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- 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
No rule matched.
Threats
- Industry dominated by American Water Works Company Inc , holding 53.56 % of industry market cap.
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Pure Cycle'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pure Cycle Corporation | 1.32 | 2.14 | 0.06 |
| American Water Works Company Inc | 0.04 | 0.43 | 1.37 |
| American States Water Co | 0.11 | 1.18 | 0.75 |
| California Water Service Group | 0.09 | 0.73 | 0.94 |
| H2o America | 0.83 | 1.55 | 1.02 |
| Middlesex Water Company | 0.02 | 0.46 | 0.80 |
Sign in to see all peers for Pure Cycle Corporation.
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.
Pure Cycle'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pure Cycle Corporation | Q2 2026 | +60.0 % | +30.7 % |
| American Water Works Company Inc | Q3 2026 | +107.6 % | +2.1 % |
| American States Water Co | Q2 2026 | +11.2 % | +28.4 % |
| California Water Service Group | Q3 2026 | +12,411.5 % | +7.0 % |
| H2o America | Q3 2026 | +4.0 % | -4.6 % |
| Middlesex Water Company | Q3 2026 | +11.3 % | +29.2 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +115.1 % | +4.4 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Pure Cycle Corporation.
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Pure Cycle'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pure Cycle Corporation | Q2 2026 | +109.1 % | +29.9 % |
| American Water Works Company Inc | Q3 2026 | +1.5 % | +11.4 % |
| American States Water Co | Q2 2026 | +6.5 % | -4.7 % |
| California Water Service Group | Q3 2026 | -0.6 % | +9.7 % |
| H2o America | Q3 2026 | +48.4 % | - |
| Middlesex Water Company | Q3 2026 | +13.6 % | - |
Sign in to see all peers for Pure Cycle Corporation.
Pure Cycle's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pure Cycle Corporation | 8.83% | 9.30% | 10.06% |
| American Water Works Company Inc | 3.15% | 3.76% | 9.99% |
| American States Water Co | 5.26% | 6.88% | 13.49% |
| California Water Service Group | 2.34% | 2.96% | 7.75% |
| H2o America | 1.91% | 2.15% | 5.65% |
| Middlesex Water Company | 3.69% | 3.19% | 10.08% |
Sign in to see all peers for Pure Cycle Corporation.
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).
Pure Cycle's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Pure Cycle Corporation | 17.76 | 7.79 |
| American Water Works Company Inc | 25.94 | 3.63 |
| American States Water Co | 24.77 | 5.11 |
| California Water Service Group | 22.59 | 2.48 |
| H2o America | 24.57 | 3.26 |
| Middlesex Water Company | 21.54 | 5.37 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 26.17 | 3.65 |
Sign in to see all peers for Pure Cycle Corporation.
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.