Kidpik's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Kidpik (PIK) 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: Kidpik vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 9M vs 6,993M combined for tracked competitors (0.1% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+38.8% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs decelerating (-28.9%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Kidpik generated -6.8% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2023, vs -30.8% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its -66.0% net margin compares with -1.8% for the peer group.
- Peer revenue share: Kidpik accounted for 0.3% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 0.2% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.07M compares with $0.21M for the peer group (0.3x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
PIK Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2023
Kidpik reported revenue contraction of 6.81 % year on year in Q2 2023, above its competitors' combined revenue change of -30.82 %.
With a net margin of -65.96 %, Kidpik reported lower profitability than its competitors (-1.82 %).
Kidpik generated 0.25 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 0.18 % a year earlier.
Kidpik vs. its Competitors, Q2 2023
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 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 Kidpik and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Kidpik Corp | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (6) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Kidpik's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Internet, E-commerce, Online Shops industry grew revenue 54.1% year over year, combined, vs -6.8% for Kidpik. Kidpik's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.00% to 0.00%, a gain of 0.00 percentage points.
Kidpik'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kidpik Corp | No | No | No | Yes |
| Competitors combined (4) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 62.50 % (5 of 8) | 37.50 % (3 of 8) | 37.50 % (3 of 8) | 57.10 % (4 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.
PIK Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
PIK 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 | Lulu s Fashion Lounge Holdings Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Carter s Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Zumiez Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | The Children s Place inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Kidpik's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Kidpik's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of Kidpik Corp
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Kidpik Corp | 4.64 | 8.86 |
| Carter s Inc | 1,103.60 | 4,612.74 |
| Zumiez Inc | 229.14 | 937.47 |
| The Children s Place inc | 46.86 | 1,181.13 |
| Lulu s Fashion Lounge Holdings Inc | 33.34 | 262.04 |
| SUBTOTAL | 1,417.59 | 7,002.23 |
Sources: Kidpik Corp'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 Kidpik Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Kidpik'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 |
|---|---|
| Carter s Inc | Retail 49.50 % |
| The Children s Place inc | The Children's Place International 9.91 % |
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).
Kidpik'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kidpik Corp | 5 | 69,253 | -62,179 |
| Carter s Inc | 1,104 | 299,528 | 12,484 |
| Zumiez Inc | 229 | 104,164 | 1,605 |
| The Children s Place inc | 47 | 151,426 | -13,773 |
| Lulu s Fashion Lounge Holdings Inc | 33 | 495,342 | -15,677 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 1,413 | 213,675 | 2,780 |
Kidpik'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 |
|---|---|
| Zumiez Inc | US 76.22 % |
| The Children s Place inc | International and other 26.16 % |
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.
Kidpik's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Internet, E-commerce, Online Shops industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (50 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 28.00 % | 39.17 % (avg) | -11.2 pp |
| Operating Margin | -89.37 % | industry median | -88.2 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | -89.88 % | -2.82 % (avg) | -87.1 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | - | 1.73 % (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.
Kidpik's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Internet, E-commerce, Online Shops industry average (50 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 | - | 18.4x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | - | 14.3x | - |
| P/B | -5.3x | 3.2x | -8.5x |
| Return on Equity | 933.67 % | industry aggregate | 912.23 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 1,394.07 % | 4.58 % (avg) | 1,389.49 % |
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.
Kidpik's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | - | -27.28 % | -11.75 % |
| Operating Margin | - | -49.27 % | -70.69 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | - | -33.49 % | -98.63 % |
| 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.
Kidpik's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Kidpik's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Kidpik 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.
Kidpik'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.
Kidpik 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.
Kidpik'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
- Return on equity 912.2 points above the industry aggregate.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+38.8% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Operating margin 88.2 points below the industry median.
- Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below, the standard financial-distress signal.
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-28.9% annualized).
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.
Kidpik'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kidpik Corp | 0.01 | 0.80 | - |
| Carter s Inc | 0.88 | 2.50 | 0.59 |
| Zumiez Inc | 0.53 | 1.88 | - |
| The Children s Place inc | 0.01 | 0.94 | - |
| Lulu s Fashion Lounge Holdings Inc | 0.05 | 0.59 | 13.41 |
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.
Kidpik'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kidpik Corp | Q2 2023 | -66.1 % | - |
| Carter s Inc | Q2 2026 | +5.3 % | +22,795.1 % |
| Zumiez Inc | Q1 2026 | +4.9 % | - |
| The Children s Place inc | Q1 2026 | -11.3 % | - |
| Lulu s Fashion Lounge Holdings Inc | Q2 2026 | -16.2 % | - |
| PEERS TOTAL | -0.3 % | - |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Kidpik'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kidpik Corp | Q2 2023 | -67.3 % | - |
| Carter s Inc | Q2 2026 | -33.0 % | -64.0 % |
| Zumiez Inc | Q1 2026 | +2.3 % | -23.1 % |
| The Children s Place inc | Q1 2026 | -5.8 % | +135.4 % |
| Lulu s Fashion Lounge Holdings Inc | Q2 2026 | -20.8 % | -14.6 % |
Kidpik's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kidpik Corp | - | - | - |
| Carter s Inc | 7.50% | 7.21% | 20.53% |
| Zumiez Inc | 2.29% | 2.16% | 4.73% |
| The Children s Place inc | - | - | - |
| Lulu s Fashion Lounge Holdings Inc | - | - | - |
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).
Kidpik's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Kidpik Corp | - | 0.52 |
| Carter s Inc | 5.79 | 0.24 |
| Zumiez Inc | 17.68 | 0.24 |
| The Children s Place inc | - | 0.04 |
| Lulu s Fashion Lounge Holdings Inc | - | 0.13 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 17.08 | 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.