Purebase's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Purebase (PUBC) 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: Purebase vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 0M vs 1,660M combined for tracked competitors (0.0% combined share).
- Scale: Purebase ranks #38 of 45 companies by market capitalization in the Agricultural Production industry, holding 0.0% of industry market cap.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.16M compares with $0.26M for the peer group (0.6x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
Purebase vs. its Competitors, Q1 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 Purebase and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Purebase Corporation | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (5) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Purebase's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
Purebase'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purebase Corporation | - | - | - | No |
| Competitors combined (1) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (5) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (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.
PUBC Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
PUBC Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
PUBC 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 | Brady Corp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Purebase's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Purebase's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of Purebase Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Purebase Corporation | 0.28 | 0.49 |
| Brady Corp | 4,015.77 | 1,659.60 |
| SUBTOTAL | 4,016.05 | 1,660.09 |
Sources: Purebase 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 Purebase Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Purebase's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| BioFlora | Named by the company | 85% |
| Carbon Cure Technologies | Named by the company | 85% |
| Microsoft | Named by the company | 85% |
| Thiele Kaolin Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Bill Gates | Named by the company | 85% |
| Burgess Pigment | Named by the company | 85% |
| IMERYS | Named by the company | 85% |
| Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. | Named by the company | 85% |
| Amazon | Named by the company | 85% |
| Boral | Named by the company | 85% |
| Carbon Engineering Ltd | Named by the company | 85% |
| Novasource | Named by the company | 85% |
| Waste Management, Inc. | Named by the company | 85% |
| Active Minerals | Named by the company | 85% |
| Bio Huma Netics | Named by the company | 85% |
| Carbon Cure | Named by the company | 85% |
| KaMin | Named by the company | 85% |
| The Andersons Humic Solutions | Named by the company | 85% |
| BASF | Named by the company | 85% |
| Boral Industries, Inc. | Named by the company | 85% |
| Climeworks | Named by the company | 85% |
| Tessenderlo Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| Active Minerals International, LLC | Named by the company | 85% |
| Brady Corp | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Purebase'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.
Purebase'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 |
|---|---|
| Brady Corp | Americas & Asia 66.76 % |
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).
Purebase'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purebase Corporation | 0 | 163,408 | -724,688 |
| Brady Corp | 4,016 | 262,387 | 32,471 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 4,016 | 262,387 | 32,471 |
Purebase's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 39 companies in Purebase's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Purebase ranks #38 of 39 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.00 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,571, 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 | Archer daniels midland Co | 39,540 | 25.42 % |
| 2 | Nutrien Ltd | 35,003 | 22.51 % |
| 3 | Bunge Global Sa | 21,394 | 13.76 % |
| 4 | Cf Industries Holdings inc | 18,057 | 11.61 % |
| 5 | Darling Ingredients Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Mosaic Co | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Icl Group Ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Seaboard Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Scotts Miracle gro Co | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Andersons Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 38 | Purebase Corporation | 0 | 0.00 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Purebase's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-09-25.
Purebase'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 33 | Aquabounty Technologies Inc | 5 | -39.70 % |
| 34 | Senestech Inc | 4 | -84.09 % |
| 35 | Evogene Ltd | 3 | -63.06 % |
| 36 | Edible Garden Ag Incorporated | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 37 | Nexentis Technologies Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 38 | Purebase Corporation | 0 | - |
| 39 | Davis Commodities Limited | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Purebase'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.
Purebase's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Agricultural Production industry average (58 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 | - | 20.8x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | - | 9.8x | - |
| P/B | -6.1x | 1.7x | -7.8x |
| Return on Equity | 219.00 % | industry aggregate | 212.77 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 71.11 % | 1.23 % (avg) | 69.88 % |
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.
Purebase'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 | - | -35.86 % | -53.19 % | - | - | - | - | - |
| Operating Margin | -194.14 % | -372.99 % | -906.29 % | - | - | - | - | - |
| Return on Invested Capital | 17.07 % | 15.38 % | 101.49 % | 296.84 % | 2,618.45 % | 636.45 % | 124.63 % | 85.83 % |
| 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.
Purebase's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Purebase'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.
Purebase falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.00x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 4.2% (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.
Purebase'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 1,571 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Purebase's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Purebase'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.
Purebase'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.
Purebase 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.
Purebase'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 212.8 points above the industry aggregate.
Weaknesses
- 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.
Purebase'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purebase Corporation | 0.04 | 0.09 | - |
| Brady Corp | 0.54 | 1.97 | 0.05 |
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.
Purebase'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purebase Corporation | Q1 2026 | - | - |
| Brady Corp | Q2 2026 | +9.7 % | -8.6 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +9.7 % | -8.5 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Purebase'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purebase Corporation | Q1 2026 | - | - |
| Brady Corp | Q2 2026 | +3.9 % | +107.8 % |
Purebase's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purebase Corporation | - | - | - |
| Brady Corp | 11.39% | 14.00% | 15.99% |
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).
Purebase's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Purebase Corporation | - | 0.57 |
| Brady Corp | 19.56 | 2.42 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 19.76 | 2.42 |
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.