Parkervision Inc's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Parkervision Inc (PRKR) 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: Parkervision Inc vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 0M vs 300,039M combined for tracked competitors (0.0% combined share).
- Scale: Parkervision Inc ranks #42 of 59 companies by market capitalization in the Consumer Electronics industry, holding 0.0% of industry market cap.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.01M compares with $0.45M for the peer group (0.0x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
Parkervision Inc vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
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 Parkervision Inc and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Parkervision Inc | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (1) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (7) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Parkervision Inc's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
Parkervision Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parkervision Inc | - | - | - | - |
| Competitors combined (54) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (1) | - | - | - | |
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) |
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.
PRKR Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
PRKR Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
PRKR 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 | Emcore Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Lumentum Holdings Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Maxlinear Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Dupont De Nemours Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Applied Optoelectronics Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Parkervision Inc's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Parkervision Inc's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Our WiFi products compete with WiFi networking products offered by companies such as Google, Belkin/Linksys, NetGear, Eero, and others. We also expect to face competition from service providers who bundle competing networking devices with their service offering if we are not the supplier of choice for those service providers. We believe the principal competitive factors in the markets for our networking products include product performance, ease-of-installation, price, customer support, brand and the breadth of sales channels. To compete, we must continue to invest in developing new products and features, expanding our sales channels and maintaining superior customer support.
Our technologies and IC products face competition from incumbent providers of transceivers, such as Broadcom, Fujitsu, Intel, MediaTek, NVidia, Qualcomm, STMicroelectronics, Marvell, Texas Instruments, and others, as well as incumbent providers of power amplifiers, including companies such as Anadigics, Qorvo, and Skyworks, among others. Each of our competitors, however, also has the potential of becoming a licensing or product customer for our technologies. To date, we are unaware of any competing or emerging RF technologies, other than infringing products that provide all the simultaneous benefits that certain of our technologies enable. Our unique technologies process RF carriers in a more optimal manner than prior traditional technologies, thereby allowing the creation of handsets and other products that have extended battery life, lower operating temperatures, more easily incorporate multiple air interface standards and frequencies in smaller form factors, improve operational performance, and reduce manufacturing costs. One or more of these benefits enable some of the key features that can be found in high volume wireless products. Our technologies provide such attractive benefits, in part, because of their unique operational and/or circuit architectures. The benefits our technologies enable include highly accurate transmission and reception of RF carriers that use less power than traditional architectures and components, thereby extending battery life, reducing heat and enabling certain size, cost, performance, and packaging advantages.
We believe the most significant hurdle to the licensing and/or sale of our technologies and products is the widespread use of certain of our technologies in infringing products produced by companies with significantly greater financial, technical and sales and marketing resources. We believe we can gain adoption and/or secure licensing agreements with unauthorized current users of one or more of our technologies, and therefore compete, based on a solid and defensible patent portfolio and the advantages enabled by our unique circuit architectures.
Publicly Traded Peers of Parkervision Inc
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Parkervision Inc | 21.10 | 0.07 |
| Broadcom Inc | 1,708,348.59 | 89,104.00 |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 425,572.38 | 63,325.00 |
| Marvell Technology Inc | 225,022.27 | 8,715.90 |
| Amphenol Corporation | 218,184.21 | 29,010.70 |
| Corning Inc | 132,615.00 | 16,964.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 3,355,874.97 | 343,176.32 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Parkervision Inc.
Sources: Parkervision Inc'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 Parkervision Inc versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Parkervision Inc's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Quest Patent Research Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Parkervision Inc'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.
Parkervision 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 |
|---|---|
| Broadcom Inc | Semiconductor Solutions 64.81 % |
| Cisco Systems Inc | Americas 60.41 % |
| Marvell Technology Inc | Reportable 100.00 % |
| Amphenol Corporation | Communications Solutions Segment 61.97 % |
| Corning Inc | Optical Communications 40.55 % |
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).
Parkervision 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parkervision Inc | 21 | 9,250 | -418,875 |
| Broadcom Inc | 1,708,349 | 2,700,121 | 1,159,545 |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 425,572 | 768,507 | 161,007 |
| Marvell Technology Inc | 225,022 | 1,165,227 | 676,350 |
| Amphenol Corporation | 218,184 | 170,651 | 30,516 |
| Corning Inc | 132,615 | 252,440 | 30,863 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 3,355,854 | 450,529 | 102,433 |
Parkervision Inc'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 |
|---|---|
| Broadcom Inc | Asia Pacific 60.15 % |
| Marvell Technology Inc | China 43.75 % |
| Amphenol Corporation | Other foreign locations 48.31 % |
| 3m Company | Americas 54.09 % |
| Motorola Solutions inc | North America 68.42 % |
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.
Parkervision Inc's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 54 companies in Parkervision Inc's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Parkervision Inc ranks #42 of 54 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.00 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,778, 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 | Qualcomm Inc | 200,416 | 30.74 % |
| 2 | Sony Group Corporation | 144,101 | 22.10 % |
| 3 | Motorola Solutions inc | 75,588 | 11.59 % |
| 4 | Nokia Corporation | 62,247 | 9.55 % |
| 5 | Ciena Corp | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Ubiquiti Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Ericsson Lm Telephone Co | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Fabrinet | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Viasat Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Planet Labs Pbc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 42 | Parkervision Inc | 21 | 0.00 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Parkervision Inc's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-09-28.
Parkervision 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 37 | Comtech Telecommunications Corp | 42 | -46.11 % |
| 38 | Fiee Inc | 39 | - |
| 39 | Koss Corporation | 39 | -22.05 % |
| 40 | Franklin Wireless Corp | 29 | -42.58 % |
| 41 | Careview Communications Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 42 | Parkervision Inc | 21 | -51.92 % |
| 43 | Sunation Energy Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 44 | Clearone Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 45 | Voip pal com Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 46 | Emerson Radio Corp | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 47 | Silynxcom Ltd | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Parkervision Inc'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.
Parkervision Inc's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Consumer Electronics industry average (65 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 Consumer Electronics industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 45.3x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | - | 19.2x | - |
| P/B | -0.5x | 4.8x | -5.3x |
| Return on Equity | 7.24 % | industry aggregate | -22.30 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | - | 3.80 % (avg) | - |
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.
Parkervision Inc'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 | - | -45.19 % | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Operating Margin | -11,104.44 % | -10,722.97 % | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Return on Invested Capital | 96.43 % | 26.14 % | 25.85 % | 19.61 % | 14.21 % | -30.47 % | 10.36 % | 16.52 % |
| P/E | - | - | - | - | - | 2.5x | - | - |
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.
Parkervision Inc's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Parkervision Inc'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.
Parkervision Inc falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.00x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue -0.4% (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.
Parkervision 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 1,778 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Parkervision Inc's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Parkervision Inc'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.
Parkervision Inc'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.
Parkervision 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.
Parkervision 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
No rule matched.
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 22.3 points below the industry aggregate.
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.00x).
Opportunities
No rule matched.
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.
Parkervision 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parkervision Inc | 1.15 | 1.31 | - |
| Broadcom Inc | 0.99 | 2.05 | 0.75 |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 0.25 | 0.94 | 0.63 |
| Marvell Technology Inc | 0.98 | 2.25 | 0.31 |
| Amphenol Corporation | 0.17 | 2.11 | 1.43 |
| Corning Inc | 0.25 | 1.64 | 0.68 |
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.
Parkervision 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parkervision Inc | Q2 2026 | - | - |
| Broadcom Inc | Q2 2026 | +85.5 % | +216.1 % |
| Cisco Systems Inc | Q2 2026 | +17.6 % | +51.3 % |
| Marvell Technology Inc | Q1 2026 | +27.6 % | -70.1 % |
| Amphenol Corporation | Q2 2026 | +55.0 % | +62.1 % |
| Corning Inc | Q2 2026 | +16.6 % | +21.8 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +28.8 % | +102.2 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Parkervision 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parkervision Inc | Q2 2026 | -31.4 % | - |
| Broadcom Inc | Q2 2026 | +74.0 % | +274.6 % |
| Cisco Systems Inc | Q2 2026 | +14.8 % | +79.7 % |
| Marvell Technology Inc | Q1 2026 | +22.8 % | +30.3 % |
| Amphenol Corporation | Q2 2026 | +44.8 % | +19.7 % |
| Corning Inc | Q2 2026 | +16.5 % | +37.0 % |
Parkervision Inc's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parkervision Inc | - | - | - |
| Broadcom Inc | 21.57% | 24.07% | 43.74% |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 10.64% | 11.94% | 27.52% |
| Marvell Technology Inc | 22.14% | 25.02% | 33.73% |
| Amphenol Corporation | 13.80% | 15.13% | 37.19% |
| Corning Inc | 6.63% | 8.04% | 16.66% |
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).
Parkervision Inc's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Parkervision Inc | - | 285.09 |
| Broadcom Inc | 44.53 | 19.17 |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 31.96 | 6.72 |
| Marvell Technology Inc | 86.39 | 25.82 |
| Amphenol Corporation | 42.31 | 7.52 |
| Corning Inc | 69.21 | 7.82 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 43.01 | 9.78 |
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.