Qumu's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Qumu (QUMU) 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: Qumu vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 21M vs 2,676,549M combined for its competitors (0.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+2.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs decelerating (-30.9%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Qumu generated -14.9% revenue growth year over year in Q3 2022, vs 9.2% for its competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its -25.0% net margin compares with 15.4% for the peer group.
- Peer revenue share: Qumu accounted for 0.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 0.0% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.18M compares with $1.01M for the peer group (0.2x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
QUMU Sales vs. its Competitors, Q3 2022
Qumu reported revenue contraction of 14.85 % year on year in Q3 2022, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 9.24 %.
With a net margin of -24.99 %, Qumu reported lower profitability than its competitors (15.37 %).
Qumu generated 0.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 0.00 % a year earlier.
API endpoints for this dataset
Qumu vs. its Competitors, Q3 2022
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 Qumu 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 Qumu and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Qumu Corporation | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (3) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Qumu's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Software & Programming industry grew revenue 16.7% year over year, combined, vs -14.9% for Qumu. Qumu's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.00% to 0.00%, a gain of 0.00 percentage points.
Qumu's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qumu Corporation | No | No | No | No |
| Competitors combined (36) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 12.50 % (1 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 62.50 % (5 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.
QUMU Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
QUMU 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 | Ringcentral Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Marvell Technology Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Wolfspeed Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | On24 Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Macom Technology Solutions Holdings Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Qumu's best-performing competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Qumu's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of Qumu Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Qumu Corporation |
16.31 | 21.45 |
 Apple Inc |
5,223,942.19 | 478,834.00 |
 Microsoft Corporation |
3,894,258.00 | 346,445.00 |
 Alphabet Inc |
3,652,888.80 | 471,097.00 |
 Amazon com Inc |
2,922,851.76 | 798,097.00 |
 Broadcom Inc |
1,780,627.32 | 89,104.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 18,943,425.14 | 2,894,450.58 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Qumu Corporation.
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Qumu Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Qumu's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Qumu reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Vimeo Inc | Company report | 85% |
| On24 Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Bridgeline Digital Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Sonic Foundry Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Liveperson Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Kaltura Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Ringcentral Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Brightcove Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Pgi Incorporated | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Qumu's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Qumu'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 |
|---|---|
| Apple Inc | Americas 41.84 % |
| Microsoft Corporation | Agents and Infra 83.22 % |
| Alphabet Inc | Google Services 75.49 % |
| Amazon com Inc | North America 55.86 % |
| Broadcom Inc | Semiconductor Solutions 64.81 % |
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).
Qumu'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qumu Corporation | 16 | 177,289 | -103,124 |
| Apple Inc | 5,223,942 | 2,867,269 | 791,467 |
| Microsoft Corporation | 3,894,258 | 1,553,565 | 639,601 |
| Alphabet Inc | 3,652,889 | 10,191,610 | 5,098,953 |
| Amazon com Inc | 2,922,852 | 506,407 | 85,520 |
| Broadcom Inc | 1,780,627 | 2,700,121 | 1,159,545 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 18,943,409 | 1,008,573 | 266,657 |
Qumu's Geographic Revenue Exposure vs Peers
Revenue by country/region as reported in each company's most recent report. Disclosure granularity varies by filer (some report by country, others by broad region) and is shown as disclosed.| Company | Largest Market |
|---|---|
| Qumu Corporation | North America 62.47 % |
| Apple Inc | Other countries 47.76 % |
| Microsoft Corporation | US 53.60 % |
| Alphabet Inc | United States 53.05 % |
| Broadcom Inc | Asia Pacific 60.15 % |
| Oracle Corporation | Americas 63.46 % |
Source: revenue geography as reported in each company's reports (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API. Percentages are of that company's own total consolidated revenue for its most recent reported period.
Qumu's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Software & Programming industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (442 companies). See the full Software & Programming industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 74.79 % | 51.01 % (avg) | +23.8 pp |
| Operating Margin | -64.64 % | industry median | -42.1 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | -55.36 % | 1.99 % (avg) | -57.4 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 0.15 % | 5.20 % (avg) | -5.0 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.
Qumu's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Software & Programming industry average (442 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 Software & Programming industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 41.7x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | - | 20.5x | - |
| P/B | 1.8x | 5.6x | -3.8x |
| Return on Equity | -172.41 % | industry aggregate | -188.84 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -84.28 % | -3.14 % (avg) | -81.14 % |
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.
Qumu's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in company reports.| Metric | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | -67.84 % | 29.91 % | -8.05 % | -11.09 % | -11.20 % | 1.40 % | 14.63 % | -17.37 % |
| Operating Margin | -108.31 % | -85.34 % | -35.86 % | -31.49 % | -27.64 % | -20.94 % | -25.12 % | -76.16 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -23.72 % | -35.96 % | -25.12 % | -26.41 % | -34.63 % | -34.80 % | -43.33 % | -47.29 % |
| 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.
Qumu's Strategic Group Map
Qumu 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.
Qumu's trailing-12-month revenue growth of -14.2% and operating margin of -64.6% compares with an average of -20.7% growth and -65.7% margin across its 8 closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC -- Qumu sits above that peer average on growth and above 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.
Qumu'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 |
|---|---|---|
| Barriers to Entry | Lower than typical for the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 0.15 % vs industry average 5.20 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Qumu's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Qumu's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Qumu 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.
Qumu'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
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+2.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Operating margin 42.1 points below the industry median.
- Return on equity 188.8 points below the industry aggregate.
Opportunities
- Industry revenue growing at a healthy 11.2% median pace.
Threats
- Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-30.9% annualized).
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Qumu'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qumu Corporation | 0.64 | 1.03 | - |
| Apple Inc | 0.27 | 1.02 | 0.88 |
| Microsoft Corporation | 0.16 | 1.27 | 0.10 |
| Alphabet Inc | 0.63 | 2.40 | 0.16 |
| Amazon com Inc | 0.35 | 1.06 | 0.25 |
| Broadcom Inc | 0.99 | 2.05 | 0.75 |
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.
Qumu'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qumu Corporation | Q3 2022 | -14.8 % | - |
| Apple Inc | Q3 2026 | +11.7 % | +11.8 % |
| Microsoft Corporation | Q3 2026 | +18.8 % | +32.0 % |
| Alphabet Inc | Q3 2026 | +24.7 % | -24.3 % |
| Amazon com Inc | Q3 2026 | +12.1 % | -2.4 % |
| Broadcom Inc | Q2 2026 | +85.5 % | +216.1 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +15.1 % | +5.0 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Qumu'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qumu Corporation | Q3 2022 | -20.3 % | - |
| Apple Inc | Q3 2026 | +10.2 % | -30.8 % |
| Microsoft Corporation | Q3 2026 | +23.6 % | +103.0 % |
| Alphabet Inc | Q3 2026 | +24.3 % | +114.4 % |
| Amazon com Inc | Q3 2026 | +6.7 % | +20.1 % |
| Broadcom Inc | Q2 2026 | +74.0 % | +274.6 % |
Qumu's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qumu Corporation | - | - | - |
| Apple Inc | 34.37% | 57.35% | 127.61% |
| Microsoft Corporation | 20.01% | 23.87% | 34.15% |
| Alphabet Inc | 29.24% | 34.26% | 42.62% |
| Amazon com Inc | 13.23% | 18.74% | 26.71% |
| Broadcom Inc | 21.57% | 24.07% | 43.74% |
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).
Qumu's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Qumu Corporation | - | 0.76 |
| Apple Inc | 39.61 | 10.91 |
| Microsoft Corporation | 27.31 | 11.24 |
| Alphabet Inc | 15.41 | 7.75 |
| Amazon com Inc | 21.60 | 3.66 |
| Broadcom Inc | 46.42 | 19.98 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 24.75 | 6.54 |
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.