Ricebran Technologies's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Ricebran Technologies (RIBT) 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: Ricebran Technologies vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 15M vs 215,821M combined for tracked competitors (0.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-60.4% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs decelerating (-11.0%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Ricebran Technologies generated -84.2% revenue growth year over year in Q1 2024, vs -12.3% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its -127.0% net margin compares with 2.8% for the peer group.
- Peer revenue share: Ricebran Technologies accounted for 0.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 0.0% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.21M compares with $1.99M for the peer group (0.1x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
RIBT Sales vs. its Competitors, Q1 2024
Ricebran Technologies reported revenue contraction of 84.22 % year on year in Q1 2024, below its competitors' combined revenue change of -12.34 %.
With a net margin of -127.00 %, Ricebran Technologies reported lower profitability than its competitors (2.79 %).
Ricebran Technologies generated 0.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 0.02 % a year earlier.
Ricebran Technologies vs. its Competitors, Q1 2024
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 Ricebran Technologies and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Ricebran Technologies | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (5) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Ricebran Technologies's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Food Processing industry grew revenue 12.8% year over year, combined, vs -84.2% for Ricebran Technologies. Ricebran Technologies's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.01% to 0.00%, a loss of 0.01 percentage points.
Ricebran Technologies'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ricebran Technologies | No | No | No | No |
| Competitors combined (8) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 37.50 % (3 of 8) | 50.00 % (4 of 8) | 50.00 % (4 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.
RIBT Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
RIBT 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 | Darling Ingredients Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Bunge Global Sa | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Archer daniels midland Co | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | The J M Smucker Company | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Bab Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Ricebran Technologies's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Ricebran Technologies's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
We are aware of several new producers of rice based animal nutrition and food ingredient products in the U.S., Europe and Asia. We believe that our major nutritional supplement competitors include producers of isolated soy protein, wheat bran and oat bran, particularly in the functional food ingredients market segment.
We compete with other companies that offer products incorporating SRB as well as companies that offer other food ingredients and nutritional supplements. We also face competition from companies providing products that use oat bran and wheat bran as nutritional supplements as well as for health and beauty aids. Many consumers may consider such products to be a replacement for the products we manufacture and distribute.
We also compete in the worlds edible oil market. Our competition for exports of rice bran oil resides primarily in Southeast Asia. Our branded rice bran oil “Carreteiro” competes with other bottled oils such as soy, palm, canola, peanut and others in the Brazilian market. In addition, our exported rice bran oil competes with those same oils from other grains, seeds and plants in markets around the world.
Publicly Traded Peers of Ricebran Technologies
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Ricebran Technologies | 0.00 | 14.78 |
| Archer daniels midland Co | 38,984.30 | 82,099.00 |
| Bunge Global Sa | 21,346.72 | 80,547.00 |
| The J M Smucker Company | 12,886.08 | 9,157.10 |
| Darling Ingredients Inc | 9,732.39 | 6,548.66 |
| Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings Inc | 8,165.22 | 0.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 91,198.33 | 215,835.72 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Ricebran Technologies.
Sources: Ricebran Technologies'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 Ricebran Technologies versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Ricebran Technologies'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 |
|---|---|
| Archer daniels midland Co | Ag Services and Oilseeds 76.86 % |
| Bunge Global Sa | Soybean Processing and Refining 60.69 % |
| The J M Smucker Company | U.S. Retail Coffee 38.83 % |
| Darling Ingredients Inc | Feed Ingredients 66.67 % |
| Chs Inc | Grains 48.90 % |
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).
Ricebran Technologies'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ricebran Technologies | 0 | 211,186 | -248,429 |
| Archer daniels midland Co | 38,984 | 1,978,480 | 42,872 |
| Bunge Global Sa | 21,347 | 2,369,029 | 21,000 |
| The J M Smucker Company | 12,886 | 1,308,157 | 32,786 |
| Darling Ingredients Inc | 9,732 | 436,578 | 40,417 |
| Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings Inc | 8,165 | 0 | -1,771,031 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 91,198 | 1,990,013 | 31,832 |
Sign in to see all peers for Ricebran Technologies.
Ricebran Technologies'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 |
|---|---|
| The J M Smucker Company | United States 94.68 % |
| Darling Ingredients Inc | North America 58.21 % |
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.
Ricebran Technologies's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 53 companies in Ricebran Technologies's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Ricebran Technologies ranks #0 of 53 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.00 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,029, indicating a unconcentrated 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 | Mondel z International Inc | 77,057 | 25.34 % |
| 2 | Hershey Co | 33,750 | 11.10 % |
| 3 | Kraft Heinz Co | 27,966 | 9.20 % |
| 4 | Tyson Foods Inc | 18,027 | 5.93 % |
| 5 | General Mills Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Magnum Ice Cream Co N v | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | The J M Smucker Company | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Mccormick and Company Incorporated | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Hormel Foods Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Smithfield Foods Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 0 | Ricebran Technologies | 0 | 0.00 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Ricebran Technologies'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.
Ricebran Technologies's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Food Processing industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (79 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 2.26 % | 26.42 % (avg) | -24.2 pp |
| Operating Margin | -47.89 % | industry median | -55.2 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | -47.17 % | -1.80 % (avg) | -45.4 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 3.63 % | 4.50 % (avg) | -0.9 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.
Ricebran Technologies's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Food Processing industry average (79 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 | - | 26.5x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | - | 12.9x | - |
| P/B | -0.9x | 2.9x | -3.8x |
| Return on Equity | 911.19 % | industry aggregate | 900.26 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 453.78 % | 0.69 % (avg) | 453.09 % |
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.
Ricebran Technologies's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | -1.23 % | -66.11 % | 10.54 % | 60.64 % | 10.48 % | 18.83 % | 33.68 % | -45.72 % |
| Operating Margin | -28.25 % | -45.65 % | -55.63 % | -61.39 % | -43.09 % | -33.94 % | -17.55 % | -34.96 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -89.43 % | -25.24 % | -21.54 % | -22.30 % | -20.51 % | -22.18 % | -22.71 % | -125.01 % |
| 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.
Ricebran Technologies's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Ricebran Technologies's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Ricebran Technologies 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.
Ricebran Technologies'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 | High | Industry HHI of 1,029 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | Lower than typical for the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 3.63 % vs industry average 4.50 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Ricebran Technologies's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Ricebran Technologies'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.
Ricebran Technologies'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.
Ricebran Technologies 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.
Ricebran Technologies'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 900.3 points above the industry aggregate.
Weaknesses
- Operating margin 55.2 points below the industry median.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-60.4% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-11.0% 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.
Ricebran Technologies'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ricebran Technologies | 0.07 | 0.48 | - |
| Archer daniels midland Co | 0.47 | 1.36 | 0.36 |
| Bunge Global Sa | 0.17 | 1.70 | 0.87 |
| The J M Smucker Company | - | 0.83 | 1.24 |
| Darling Ingredients Inc | 0.13 | 1.54 | 1.01 |
| Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings Inc | 3.33 | 10.31 | 0.91 |
Sign in to see all peers for Ricebran Technologies.
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.
Ricebran Technologies'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ricebran Technologies | Q1 2024 | -84.2 % | - |
| Archer daniels midland Co | Q2 2026 | +7.2 % | +320.3 % |
| Bunge Global Sa | Q1 2026 | +87.8 % | -63.2 % |
| The J M Smucker Company | Q2 2026 | +5.0 % | - |
| Darling Ingredients Inc | Q2 2026 | +16.4 % | +2,628.8 % |
| Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings Inc | Q1 2024 | - | - |
| PEERS TOTAL | +30.1 % | +254.2 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Ricebran Technologies.
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Ricebran Technologies'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ricebran Technologies | Q1 2024 | -41.2 % | -66.1 % |
| Archer daniels midland Co | Q2 2026 | +4.8 % | -10.8 % |
| Bunge Global Sa | Q1 2026 | +91.0 % | +8.4 % |
| The J M Smucker Company | Q2 2026 | -24.3 % | +4.9 % |
| Darling Ingredients Inc | Q2 2026 | +7.5 % | - |
| Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings Inc | Q1 2024 | - | -19.3 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Ricebran Technologies.
Ricebran Technologies's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ricebran Technologies | - | - | - |
| Archer daniels midland Co | 3.33% | 5.61% | 7.77% |
| Bunge Global Sa | 1.68% | 2.67% | 4.47% |
| The J M Smucker Company | 1.36% | 1.58% | 3.92% |
| Darling Ingredients Inc | 5.72% | 5.72% | 12.23% |
| Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings Inc | - | - | - |
Sign in to see all peers for Ricebran Technologies.
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).
Ricebran Technologies's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Ricebran Technologies | - | 0.00 |
| Archer daniels midland Co | 22.03 | 0.47 |
| Bunge Global Sa | 24.96 | 0.27 |
| The J M Smucker Company | 56.21 | 1.41 |
| Darling Ingredients Inc | 16.29 | 1.49 |
| Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings Inc | - | - |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 26.55 | 0.42 |
Sign in to see all peers for Ricebran Technologies.
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.