Schmitt Industries Inc's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Schmitt Industries Inc (SMIT) 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: Schmitt Industries Inc vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 10M vs -M combined for tracked competitors (100.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-46.5% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Peer revenue share: Schmitt Industries Inc accounted for 100.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 100.0% a year earlier.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
SMIT Sales vs. its Competitors, Q1 2022
Schmitt Industries Inc generated 100.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 100.00 % a year earlier.
For context: the IT Infrastructure industry grew revenue 21.0% year over year, combined, vs -50.2% for Schmitt Industries Inc. Schmitt Industries Inc's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.00% to 0.00%, a gain of 0.00 percentage points.
Schmitt Industries Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schmitt Industries Inc | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| High-Confidence Competitors (1) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 50.00 % (4 of 8) | 37.50 % (3 of 8) | 25.00 % (2 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.
SMIT Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
SMIT Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
SMIT Stock Performance relative to Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors
Schmitt Industries Inc's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Competitors in the Balancer Segment primarily come from Germany and Italy. These competitors produce electromechanical and water balancers and process control products similar to SBS. The Company’s primary competitors are Marposs S.p.A., MPM Micro Prazision Marx GmbH and Balance Systems S.r.l.
Management believes the TMS and Lasercheck surface measurement products are two of only a few systems that provide fast, accurate, repeatable non-contact microroughness measurement for a wide variety of commercial customers. The Company believes its surface measurement products are currently the only systems that can provide measurements as low as a few hundredths of an Å, with reproducibility +/- 0.2Å or 1% and repeatability of +/-0.1Å. There are differences between our surface measurement products and other optical techniques (which include profilometers, scanning tunneling microscopes, atomic force microscopes or interferometers). These other technologies require the intervention of a skilled operator to perform measurements relatively slowly, whereas our surface measurement products are much simpler and, consequently, can make measurements more rapidly while still maintaining excellent repeatability and accuracy. Stylus profilometers are simpler devices that require less skilled operators. However, measurements must be conducted under vibration isolation conditions, and large areas require numerous scans; thus, stylus profilometers are generally destructive to soft materials such as most coated optics.
The market for distance measurement and dimensional sizing products is extremely
competitive, characterized by rapidly changing technology. The Company believes
the principal elements of competition include quality of ongoing technical support
and maintenance coupled with responsiveness to customer needs, as well as price,
product quality, reliability and performance. The differences between the Company’s
sensors and competitive products include pushbutton selection of output signals
in certain models and sensors that can be programmed using serial commands through
a PC computer.
Competing surface measurement products and dimensional sizing products come
from established multinational competitors, most of which are significantly
larger and have greater financial, engineering, manufacturing and marketing
resources. Company pricing is intended to obtain market share and meet competitive
supplier prices. The market strategy is to establish measurement products with
the best quality, reliability and performance and superior economic value.
Management believes that the Xact Tank Monitoring System offers the only ultrasonic sensor specifically designed to provide independent precise tank level calculation while most other competitors utilize gauge-reading technology, which reads the tank fill level from a pre-installed float gauge and is less accurate. Competitors offer telemetry options based on cellular or closed loop communication networks whereas Xact telemetry is satellite based. Competitors include, but are not limited to, Independent Technologies, Inc. (Wesroc), NasCorp (SkyTracker), WacnGo, Silicon Controls, TankLink, Centeron, TankScan and Enertrack.
Schmitt Industries Inc's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| NasCorp (SkyTracker) | Named by the company | 85% |
| TankScan | Named by the company | 85% |
| Anova (Wesroc) | Named by the company | 85% |
| SkyBitz | Named by the company | 85% |
| Soluna Holdings Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Otodata | Named by the company | 85% |
| WACnGO | Named by the company | 85% |
| Micro-Design, Inc. (LevelCon) | Named by the company | 85% |
| Tank Utility | Named by the company | 85% |
| Angus Energy (Gremlin) | Named by the company | 85% |
| Silicon Controls | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Schmitt Industries Inc'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.
Schmitt Industries Inc'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 |
|---|---|
| Schmitt Industries Inc | Ice Cream 84.05 % |
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).
