Smith Midland's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Smith Midland (SMID) 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: Smith Midland vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 89M vs 10,334M combined for its competitors (0.9% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+4.4% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+8.6%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Smith Midland generated -10.8% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 2.6% for its competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 5.9% net margin compares with 15.2% for the peer group.
- Scale: Smith Midland ranks #26 of 37 companies by market capitalization in the Construction Raw Materials industry, holding 0.0% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Smith Midland accounted for 0.8% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 1.0% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.31M compares with $0.73M for the peer group (0.4x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
SMID Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Smith Midland reported revenue contraction of 10.78 % year on year in Q2 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 2.55 %.
With a net margin of 5.91 %, Smith Midland reported lower profitability than its competitors (15.16 %).
Smith Midland generated 0.83 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 0.95 % a year earlier.
API endpoints for this dataset
Smith Midland vs. its Competitors, Q2 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 Smith Midland 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 Smith Midland and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Smith midland Corporation | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $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 Smith Midland's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Construction Raw Materials industry grew revenue 41.2% year over year, combined, vs -10.8% for Smith Midland. Smith Midland's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.04% to 0.03%, a loss of 0.02 percentage points.
Smith Midland's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smith midland Corporation | Yes | No | No | No |
| Competitors combined (2) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 62.50 % (5 of 8) | 12.50 % (1 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 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.
SMID Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
SMID Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
SMID 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 | Vulcan Materials Company | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Eagle Materials Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Smith Midland's best-performing competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Smith Midland's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of Smith midland Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Smith midland Corporation |
138.57 | 89.50 |
 Vulcan Materials Company |
36,612.24 | 8,008.90 |
 Eagle Materials Inc |
5,783.70 | 2,324.93 |
| SUBTOTAL | 42,534.51 | 10,423.33 |
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Smith midland Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Smith Midland's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Smith Midland reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Summit Materials Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Eagle Materials Inc | Company report | 85% |
| U s Concrete Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Vulcan Materials Company | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Smith Midland's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Smith Midland'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 |
|---|---|
| Vulcan Materials Company | Aggregates 83.42 % |
| Eagle Materials Inc | Cement 59.83 % |
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).
Smith Midland'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smith midland Corporation | 139 | 314,025 | 27,116 |
| Vulcan Materials Company | 36,612 | 681,725 | 94,025 |
| Eagle Materials Inc | 5,784 | 929,974 | 161,030 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 42,396 | 725,283 | 105,781 |
Smith Midland's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 35 companies in Smith Midland's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Smith Midland ranks #26 of 35 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.04 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,091, indicating a unconcentrated market structure (see Methodology: Market Structure & Concentration).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Crh Public Limited Company | 63,551 | 20.15 % |
| 2 | Cemex Sab De Cv | 47,586 | 15.09 % |
| 3 | Vulcan Materials Company | 36,838 | 11.68 % |
| 4 | Martin Marietta Materials Inc | 31,193 | 9.89 % |
| 5 | Teck Resources Limited | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Amrize Ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Chemical and Mining Co Of Chile Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | James Hardie Industries Plc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Hecla Mining Company | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Ioneer Ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 26 | Smith midland Corporation | 139 | 0.04 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Smith Midland's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-11-06.
Smith Midland'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Compass Minerals International Inc | 968 | 31.55 % |
| 22 | Galiano Gold Inc | 646 | -6.12 % |
| 23 | Intrepid Potash inc | 437 | 20.78 % |
| 24 | American Battery Technology Company | 170 | -68.33 % |
| 25 | Smart Sand Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 26 | Smith midland Corporation | 139 | -33.18 % |
| 27 | Standard Metals Processing Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 28 | Brazil Potash Corp | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 29 | 5e Advanced Materials Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 30 | Atlas Lithium Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 31 | Caesarstone Ltd | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Smith Midland's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-11-06. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Smith Midland's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Construction Raw Materials industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (46 companies). See the full Construction Raw Materials industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 32.15 % | 24.19 % (avg) | +8.0 pp |
| Operating Margin | 18.23 % | industry median | +3.4 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 17.46 % | 6.59 % (avg) | +10.9 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 14.40 % | 12.68 % (avg) | +1.7 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.
Smith Midland's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Construction Raw Materials industry average (46 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 Construction Raw Materials industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | 21.5x | 24.2x | -2.7x |
| EV / EBITDA | 10.9x | 13.6x | -2.7x |
| P/B | 3.0x | 2.6x | +0.4x |
| Return on Equity | 14.11 % | industry aggregate | -0.16 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 12.87 % | 2.99 % (avg) | 9.88 % |
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.
Smith Midland's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in company reports.| Metric | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 4.16 % | -3.59 % | 16.09 % | -6.06 % | -3.03 % | 18.85 % | 31.77 % | 19.03 % |
| Operating Margin | 8.91 % | 5.51 % | 5.45 % | 8.57 % | 1.70 % | 1.88 % | 9.21 % | 24.09 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 9.83 % | 5.01 % | 5.01 % | 6.56 % | 1.13 % | 1.43 % | 8.20 % | 19.91 % |
| P/E | 13.9x | 22.2x | 17.5x | 17.7x | - | 176.0x | 27.8x | 15.3x |
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.
Smith Midland's Strategic Group Map
Smith Midland 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.
Smith Midland's trailing-12-month revenue growth of -1.7% and operating margin of 18.2% compares with an average of 0.7% growth and 17.3% margin across its 8 closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC -- Smith Midland sits below 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.
Smith Midland's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
See Methodology: BCG Growth-Share Matrix for how relative share and growth are calculated and thresholded.
Smith Midland falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.00x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 3.0% (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.
Smith Midland'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 1,091 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | Moderate, in line with the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 14.40 % vs industry average 12.68 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Smith Midland's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Smith Midland's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Smith Midland 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.
Smith Midland'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 (+4.4% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.00x).
Opportunities
- Trades at a lower P/E than the industry average (21.5x vs 24.2x) despite a higher return on invested capital -- a possible re-rating opportunity.
Threats
No rule matched.
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Smith Midland'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smith midland Corporation | - | 3.26 | 0.09 |
| Vulcan Materials Company | 0.14 | 2.02 | 0.52 |
| Eagle Materials Inc | 0.56 | 3.10 | 1.01 |
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.
Smith Midland'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smith midland Corporation | Q2 2026 | -10.8 % | -66.9 % |
| Vulcan Materials Company | Q3 2026 | -4.7 % | -3.4 % |
| Eagle Materials Inc | Q2 2026 | +2.6 % | -17.2 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | -3.2 % | -7.3 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Smith Midland'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smith midland Corporation | Q2 2026 | -1.9 % | - |
| Vulcan Materials Company | Q3 2026 | -4.7 % | -20.0 % |
| Eagle Materials Inc | Q2 2026 | +9.0 % | +58.7 % |
Smith Midland's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smith midland Corporation | 8.78% | 10.73% | 14.11% |
| Vulcan Materials Company | 6.64% | 6.50% | 13.02% |
| Eagle Materials Inc | 11.16% | 11.07% | 27.04% |
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).
Smith Midland's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Smith midland Corporation | 18.01 | 1.55 |
| Vulcan Materials Company | 33.54 | 4.57 |
| Eagle Materials Inc | 14.75 | 2.49 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 28.08 | 4.08 |
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.