Scotts Miracle Gro Co's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Scotts Miracle Gro Co (SMG) 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: Scotts Miracle Gro Co vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 3,349M vs 18,382M combined for tracked competitors (15.4% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+40.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+10.9%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Scotts Miracle Gro Co generated -1.3% revenue growth year over year in Q3 2026, vs 9.6% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 9.6% net margin compares with 6.1% for the peer group.
- Scale: Scotts Miracle Gro Co ranks #9 of 45 companies by market capitalization in the Agricultural Production industry, holding 1.9% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Scotts Miracle Gro Co accounted for 18.7% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 20.4% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.64M compares with $0.65M for the peer group (1.0x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
SMG Sales vs. its Competitors, Q3 2026
Scotts Miracle Gro Co reported revenue contraction of 1.34 % year on year in Q3 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 9.60 %.
With a net margin of 9.57 %, Scotts Miracle Gro Co achieved higher profitability than its competitors (6.05 %).
Scotts Miracle Gro Co generated 18.70 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 20.35 % a year earlier.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co vs. its Competitors, Q3 2026
Revenue growth, year on year
Net income 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 Scotts Miracle Gro Co and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Scotts Miracle gro Co | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (3) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (8) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Scotts Miracle Gro Co's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Agricultural Production industry grew revenue 16.8% year over year, combined, vs -1.3% for Scotts Miracle Gro Co. Scotts Miracle Gro Co's share of combined industry revenue moved from 1.21% to 1.03%, a loss of 0.19 percentage points.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scotts Miracle gro Co | Yes | No | No | No |
| Competitors combined (6) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (5) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 50.00 % (4 of 8) | 37.50 % (3 of 8) | 14.30 % (1 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.
SMG Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
SMG Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
SMG Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
SMG 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 | Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | The Toro Company | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Seaboard Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Growgeneration Corp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Hydrofarm Holdings Group Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Scotts Miracle Gro Co's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
The markets in which we sell our products are highly competitive. We compete primarily on the basis of product innovation, product quality, product performance, value, brand strength, supply chain competency, field sales support, in-store sales support, the strength of our relationships with major retailers and advertising.
In the U.S. lawn and garden, pest control and indoor gardening and hydroponic markets, our products compete against private-label as well as branded products. Primary competitors include Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc., Bayer AG, Central Garden & Pet Company, Enforcer Products, Inc., Kellogg Garden Products, Oldcastle Retail, Inc., Lebanon Seaboard Corporation, Reckitt Benckiser, FoxFarm and Advanced Nutrients. In addition, we face competition from smaller regional competitors who operate in many of the areas where we compete.
Internationally, we face strong competition in the lawn and garden market, particularly
in Europe, Australia and Canada. Our competitors include Compo AcquiCo SARL,
Bayer AG, Westland Horticulture Ltd, Neudorff, Yates, Premier Tech and a variety
of local companies including private label brands.
Publicly Traded Peers of Scotts Miracle gro Co
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Scotts Miracle gro Co | 2,930.40 | 3,348.70 |
| The Toro Company | 9,313.35 | 4,752.70 |
| Seaboard Corporation | 3,884.29 | 10,272.00 |
| Central Garden and Pet Company | 2,432.04 | 3,084.08 |
| Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc | 1,878.68 | 2,818.60 |
| Growgeneration Corp | 93.89 | 166.93 |
| SUBTOTAL | 20,537.14 | 24,549.59 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Scotts Miracle gro Co.
Sources: Scotts Miracle gro Co'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 Scotts Miracle gro Co versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Advanced Container Technologies Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Central Garden and Pet Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Hydrofarm Holdings Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| Spectrum Brands Holdings | Named by the company | 85% |
| Lebanon Seaboard Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Woodstream Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Pet Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Nanolux Technology | Named by the company | 85% |
| Spectrum Brands Holdings | Named by the company | 85% |
| Reckitt Benckiser Group plc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Kellogg Garden Products | Named by the company | 85% |
| SBM Life Science Corp | Named by the company | 85% |
| Fertilizer Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Seaboard Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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 |
|---|---|
| Scotts Miracle gro Co | United States Consumer 94.35 % |
| The Toro Company | Professional 79.58 % |
| Seaboard Corporation | Commodity Trading and Milling 53.08 % |
| Central Garden and Pet Company | Pet Products 52.66 % |
| Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc | Global Pet Supplies 36.50 % |
| Growgeneration Corp | Cultivation and Gardening 84.52 % |
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).
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scotts Miracle gro Co | 2,930 | 643,981 | 17,481 |
| The Toro Company | 9,313 | 515,086 | 39,374 |
| Seaboard Corporation | 3,884 | 733,714 | 45,643 |
| Central Garden and Pet Company | 2,432 | 514,013 | 27,731 |
| Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc | 1,879 | 939,533 | 41,967 |
| Growgeneration Corp | 94 | 659,798 | -66,375 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 17,607 | 647,731 | 30,369 |
Sign in to see all peers for Scotts Miracle gro Co.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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 Toro Company | Non-US 18.11 % |
| Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc | United States 59.39 % |
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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 39 companies in Scotts Miracle Gro Co's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Scotts Miracle Gro Co ranks #9 of 39 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 1.91 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,559, 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 | 38,509 | 25.08 % |
| 2 | Nutrien Ltd | 34,630 | 22.56 % |
| 3 | Bunge Global Sa | 21,167 | 13.79 % |
| 4 | Cf Industries Holdings inc | 17,806 | 11.60 % |
| 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 | 2,930 | 1.91 % |
| 10 | Andersons Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Scotts Miracle Gro Co's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-09-29.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Cf Industries Holdings inc | 17,806 | 25.02 % |
| 5 | Darling Ingredients Inc | 9,689 | 87.36 % |
| 6 | Mosaic Co | 7,127 | -36.86 % |
| 7 | Icl Group Ltd | 6,677 | -14.64 % |
| 8 | Seaboard Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 9 | Scotts Miracle gro Co | 2,930 | -13.88 % |
| 10 | Andersons Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 11 | Adecoagro S a | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 12 | Dole Plc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 13 | Cvr Partners Lp | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 14 | Mission Produce Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Scotts Miracle Gro Co's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-09-29. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Agricultural Production industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (58 companies). See the full Agricultural Production industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 32.51 % | 21.12 % (avg) | +11.4 pp |
| Operating Margin | 12.37 % | industry median | +10.6 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 13.95 % | 2.16 % (avg) | +11.8 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | - | 4.73 % (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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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. See the full Agricultural Production industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | 39.2x | 20.8x | +18.5x |
| EV / EBITDA | 12.6x | 9.8x | +2.8x |
| P/B | -12.4x | 1.7x | -14.1x |
| Return on Equity | -30.04 % | industry aggregate | -37.67 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 23.72 % | 1.23 % (avg) | 22.49 % |
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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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 | 0.48 % | 17.63 % | 39.43 % | 5.28 % | -21.42 % | -12.09 % | 6.06 % | -4.19 % |
| Operating Margin | 6.79 % | 13.41 % | 15.19 % | 13.83 % | -11.86 % | -5.51 % | 5.92 % | 12.14 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 6.13 % | 12.93 % | 18.80 % | 13.71 % | -10.25 % | -6.02 % | 9.28 % | 19.82 % |
| P/E | 11,308.5x | 12.6x | 22.5x | 20.7x | - | - | - | 30.0x |
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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Scotts Miracle Gro Co's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Scotts Miracle Gro Co 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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.08x 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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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 1,559 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Scotts Miracle Gro Co's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co falls in the Low attractiveness / Medium strength cell: Harvest.
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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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
- Operating margin 10.6 points above the industry median.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+40.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 37.7 points below the industry aggregate.
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.08x).
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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scotts Miracle gro Co | 0.03 | 1.26 | - |
| The Toro Company | - | 1.61 | 0.68 |
| Seaboard Corporation | 0.10 | 2.63 | 0.29 |
| Central Garden and Pet Company | 1.52 | 3.64 | 0.73 |
| Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc | 0.23 | 2.31 | 0.31 |
| Growgeneration Corp | 0.98 | 3.93 | - |
Sign in to see all peers for Scotts Miracle gro Co.
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.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scotts Miracle gro Co | Q2 2026 | -1.3 % | -24.7 % |
| The Toro Company | Q2 2026 | +8.4 % | +43.9 % |
| Seaboard Corporation | Q2 2026 | +17.8 % | +48.1 % |
| Central Garden and Pet Company | Q2 2026 | -8.1 % | -5.7 % |
| Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc | Q1 2026 | +4.9 % | +1,741.7 % |
| Growgeneration Corp | Q2 2026 | +6.5 % | - |
| PEERS TOTAL | +7.1 % | +16.0 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Scotts Miracle gro Co.
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scotts Miracle gro Co | Q2 2026 | +2.6 % | +45.0 % |
| The Toro Company | Q2 2026 | +7.8 % | +24.2 % |
| Seaboard Corporation | Q2 2026 | +16.5 % | -32.5 % |
| Central Garden and Pet Company | Q2 2026 | -10.0 % | -8.9 % |
| Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc | Q1 2026 | +3.8 % | - |
| Growgeneration Corp | Q2 2026 | +6.5 % | +298.0 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Scotts Miracle gro Co.
Scotts Miracle Gro Co's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scotts Miracle gro Co | 3.01% | 4.42% | - |
| The Toro Company | 10.29% | 15.04% | 25.90% |
| Seaboard Corporation | 7.67% | 9.00% | 12.13% |
| Central Garden and Pet Company | 4.50% | 5.38% | 10.13% |
| Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc | 3.66% | 4.33% | 6.61% |
| Growgeneration Corp | - | - | - |
Sign in to see all peers for Scotts Miracle gro Co.
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).
Scotts Miracle Gro Co's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Scotts Miracle gro Co | 30.56 | 0.88 |
| The Toro Company | 26.12 | 1.96 |
| Seaboard Corporation | 6.14 | 0.38 |
| Central Garden and Pet Company | 14.59 | 0.79 |
| Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc | 15.81 | 0.67 |
| Growgeneration Corp | - | 0.56 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 18.93 | 0.84 |
Sign in to see all peers for Scotts Miracle gro Co.
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.