Arconic's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Arconic (ARNC) 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: Arconic vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 8,141M vs 611,225M combined for tracked competitors (1.3% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-2.2% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs decelerating (-11.7%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Arconic generated -21.9% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2023, vs 6.3% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 3.0% net margin compares with 29.7% for the peer group.
- Peer revenue share: Arconic accounted for 1.5% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 2.0% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.63M compares with $1.01M for the peer group (0.6x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
ARNC Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2023
Arconic reported revenue contraction of 21.90 % year on year in Q2 2023, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 6.26 %.
With a net margin of 2.96 %, Arconic reported lower profitability than its competitors (29.71 %).
Arconic generated 1.45 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 1.97 % a year earlier.
Arconic vs. its Competitors, Q2 2023
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 Arconic and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Arconic Corporation | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Arconic's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Miscellaneous Fabricated Products industry grew revenue 19.9% year over year, combined, vs -21.9% for Arconic. Arconic's share of combined industry revenue moved from 4.30% to 2.80%, a loss of 1.50 percentage points.
Arconic'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arconic Corporation | No | No | No | No |
| Competitors combined (34) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (4) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 62.50 % (5 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 37.50 % (3 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.
ARNC Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
ARNC Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
ARNC 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 | Viavi Solutions Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Ati Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Materion Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Kaiser Aluminum Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Arcelormittal | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Arconic's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Arconic's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Global Rolled Products (GRP)
GRP is one of the leaders in many of the aluminum flat rolled products markets
in which it participates, including aerospace, automotive, brazing sheet, commercial
transportation, industrial markets and regional specialties. However, much like
other Arconic businesses, GRP is subject to substantial and intense competition
in all of its markets.
While GRP participates in markets where Arconic believes the Company has a significant
competitive advantage due to customer intimacy, advanced manufacturing capability
and/or differentiated products, in certain cases, the Company’s competitors
are capable of making products similar to Arconic’s. The Company continuously
works to maintain and enhance its competitive advantage through innovation:
new alloys such as Arconic’s new aerospace alloys, new products such as
the Company’s 5 layer brazing products and break-through processes such
as Arconic Micromill™ technology.
GRP comprises AAP, BCI and MPS, each serving defined segments. Some of the markets
are worldwide and some are more regionally focused. Participation in these segments
by GRP’s competitors varies. For example, Novelis is the largest flat
rolled products producer but does not participate in the aerospace market. On
the other hand, Constellium participates in all major market segments including
aerospace, brazing, industrial, commercial transportation and packaging. Granges
participates only in the brazing sheet market. Other GRP competitors include
Aleris, AMAG, Kaiser, Kobe, Nanshan, and UACJ.
Additionally, there are a number of new competitors emerging, particularly in
China and other developing economies. For example, in the brazing business,
the number of viable competitors has doubled over a five-year period. Arconic
expects that this competitive pressure will continue and increase in the future
as customers seek to globalize their supply bases in order to reduce costs.
The Company continually monitors and plans for these new emerging players.
Summary of Major Competitors for GRP (both AAP and BCI)
Constellium (The Netherlands)
Novelis
UACJ (Japan)
Aleris
Hydro (Norway)
Nanshan (China)
Granges (Sweden)
Kobe (Japan)
Engineered Products and Solutions (EPS)
EPS’s business units—APP, AFSR, AFE and ATEP —are subject
to substantial and intense competition in the markets they serve. Although Arconic
believes its advanced technology, manufacturing processes and experience provide
advantages to Arconic’s customers, such as high quality and superior mechanical
properties that meet the Company’s customers’ most stringent requirements,
many of the products Arconic makes can be produced by competitors using similar
types of manufacturing processes (e.g., closed die forgings) as well as alternative
forms of manufacturing (e.g., machining out of plate). Despite intense competition,
Arconic continues as a market leader in most of its principal markets. Several
factors, including Arconic’s legacy of technical innovation, state-of-the-art
capabilities, engaged employees and long-standing customer relationships, enable
the Company to maintain its competitive position.
In the investment castings business served by APP (Nickel, Titanium and Aluminum
Investment Castings), Arconic’s principal competitor is Precision Cast
Parts Corp. (PCC). PCC produces superalloy, titanium and aluminum investment
castings principally for the aerospace and industrial gas turbine markets. In
addition, Doncasters Group Ltd. (UK) produces superalloy investment castings
for engine applications, and Pacific Cast Technologies (a subsidiary of Allegheny
Technologies, Inc. (ATI)) and Selmet both manufacture titanium investment castings
for jet engine and airframe applications and Consolidated Precision Products
(CPP) produces superalloy and aluminum investment castings principally for the
aerospace and industrial gas turbine (IGT) markets. Several of Arconic’s
largest customers have captive superalloy furnaces for producing airfoil investment
castings for their own use. Many other companies around the world also produce
superalloy, titanium, and aluminum investment castings, and some of these companies
currently compete with Arconic in the aerospace and other markets, while others
are capable of competing with the Company should they choose to do so.
In the fasteners markets served by AFSR, the two principal competitors in the
aerospace fastener business are PCC and Lisi Aerospace (France), with additional
competition from Consolidated Aerospace Manufacturing-“CAM”, and
TriMas. These companies together offer a comprehensive array of products in
a broad range of materials (including superalloys) that directly compete in
AFSR’s key segments including airframe, aero-engine, aerospace, and IGT.
As aerospace original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) seek to balance product
supply across large and small suppliers, they view smaller and emerging competition
as essential in their efforts to manage sourcing costs.
In the rings products market served by AFSR, Arconic’s principal competitor
is PCC, especially through their Carlton facility. PCC produces superalloy,
titanium and aluminum rings principally for the aerospace market. In addition,
Forgital (France and Italy) produces rings in multiple materials, and Frisa
(Mexico) manufactures rings in superalloys and titanium. Several smaller competitors
around the world compete with Arconic in specific markets, depending on the
equipment capability and metallurgical expertise.
In the forged products market served by AFE, Arconic’s largest competitors
are PCC, Weber Metals (a division of Otto Fuchs KG in Germany), Aubert &
Duval (a group member of Eramet in France), VSMPO-AVISMA (Russia) and Ladish
Co. (a subsidiary of ATI). In the extruded products market served by AFE, the
Company faces increased competition from emerging international companies, such
as Nanshan (China), as customers seek lower cost sources of production.
International competition in the investment casting, fastener, ring and forging
markets may also increase in the future as a result of strategic alliances among
engine OEMs, aero-structure prime contractors, and overseas companies, especially
in developing markets, particularly where “offset” or “local
content” requirements create purchase obligations with respect to products
manufactured in or directed to a particular country.
In the titanium milled and engineered products market served by ATEP, Arconic’s
largest competitors are PCC (through its TiMet division), ATI, and VSMPO-AVISMA
(Russia). ATEP also competes in the highly fragmented machining market with
numerous small players throughout North America and Europe. In the highly competitive
milled products space, cost and service are the differentiators, and there is
continual effort to reduce prices for input raw material. For engineered products,
such as the ATEP-supplied 787 seat tracks for Boeing, advanced capabilities
as well as an efficient supply chain are the key differentiators.
Summary of Major Competitors:
APP: Superalloy, Titanium and Aluminum Investment Castings
PCC
Doncasters Group Ltd. (UK)
Pacific Cast Technologies (a subsidiary of ATI)
CPP
Selmet
AFSR:
Fasteners
Lisi Aerospace (France)
PCC
Consolidated Aerospace Manufacturing-“CAM”
TriMas
Rings
PCC
Forgital (Italy, France)
Frisa (Mexico)
AFE:
Nickel, Titanium, Steel and Aluminum Forged Products
PCC
Weber Metals (a subsidiary of Otto Fuchs KG in Germany).
Aubert & Duval (a group member of Eramet in France)
VSMPO-AVISMA (Russia)
Ladish Co. (a subsidiary of ATI)
Aluminum Extruded Products
Universal Alloys Corporation
Kaiser Aluminum
Constellium (The Netherlands)
Nanshan (China)
ATEP:
TiMet (a division of PCC)
ATI
VSMPO-AVISMA (Russia)
Transportation and Construction Solutions (TCS)
In the forged aluminum wheels business, AWTP competes in commercial transportation,
under the product brand name Alcoa® Wheels, for the major regions that it
serves (Americas, Europe, Japan, China, and Australia). AWTP competes against
steel wheels, as well as aluminum. Its larger competitors are Accuride Corporation,
Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, Zhejiang Dicastal Hongxin Technology
Co. Ltd, and Speedline (member of the Ronal Group). In recent years, AWTP has
seen an increase in the number of aluminum wheel suppliers (both forged and
cast aluminum wheels) from China, Taiwan, and South Korea attempting to penetrate
the commercial transportation market.
BCS is a manufacturer and marketer of aluminum architectural systems and products
in North America and with a growing presence in Europe, Asia and the Middle
East. In North America, BCS primarily competes in the nonresidential building
segment. In Europe, Asia and the Middle East, it competes in both the residential
and the nonresidential building segments. BCS competes with regional and local
players in the architectural systems and more global companies in the products
markets. BCS’s competitive advantage is the cornerstone to its strong
brand, innovative products, customer intimacy and technical services. Over the
past decade, the regional competitors, primarily in North America, have narrowed
the product portfolio and technical services advantages. However, BCS has maintained
its competitive advantage through innovative products like highly energy-efficient
high-thermal products and differentiated services. BCS revenues are derived
mainly from the retail, office, education and healthcare building segments.
BCS is organized into two business segments: architectural systems and architectural
products. The primary product categories in architectural systems are storefront,
framing and entrances (SEF), curtain walls, and windows. In the SEF and curtain
wall businesses, BCS competes with competitors like Apogee, YKK, EFCO, Oldcastle,
Schüco, Hydro/SAPA and Reynaers in their aluminum framing systems business.
The architectural products business is more global and is primarily served by
subsidiaries of larger companies like Alpolic (Mitsubishi Corporation), Alucobond
(Schweiter Technologies) and Novelis (Aditya Birla Group). The competitive landscape
in the architectural systems market has been relatively stable since the mid-2000s,
with the major competitors in North America and Europe still operating in their
markets, despite some industry consolidation in North America during the late
2000s.
LAE participates in two distinct segments: building and construction and industrial.
In the building and construction market, LAE develops and markets aluminum architectural
systems for both commercial and residential buildings. LAE’s product portfolio
provides extensive coverage of all types of buildings, from more complex projects
requiring special engineering to multi-family residential buildings. In the
industrial business market, LAE manufactures and sells soft alloy extruded profiles
and solutions, mainly for the automotive, consumer goods, machinery and equipment
segments. Overall, LAE holds a strong presence in Brazil, where competition
is very fragmented, composed mainly of small local extruders and a few multinationals
such as CBA (Votorantim Group) and SAPA.
Summary of Major Competitors:
AWTP:
Accuride Corporation
Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation (Japan)
Zhejiang Dicastal Hongxin Technology Co. Ltd (China)
Speedline (member of the Ronal Group in Switzerland)
BCS:
North America Systems – Apogee, Oldcastle, YKK and EFCO
North America Products – Alpolic, Alucobond and Alucoil
Europe Systems - Schüco (Germany), Hydro/SAPA (Norway), Reynaers (Belgium)
and Corialis (Belgium)
Europe Products – Alucobond, Alucoil, Euramax and Novelis
LAE:
Belmetal (Brazil)
CBA (Brazil)
SAPA (Norway)
Aluk (Brazil)
Publicly Traded Peers of Arconic Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Arconic Corporation | 3,061.98 | 8,141.00 |
| Nucor Corporation | 55,865.97 | 36,101.00 |
| Arcelormittal | 53,505.10 | 61,352.00 |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | 33,312.32 | 20,538.68 |
| Ati Inc | 24,986.66 | 4,715.20 |
| Mueller Industries Inc | 13,486.08 | 4,661.14 |
| SUBTOTAL | 271,766.00 | 624,336.24 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Arconic Corporation.
Sources: Arconic Corporation'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 Arconic Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Arconic's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Howmet | Named by the company | 85% |
| Novelis Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Constellium Se | Named by the company | 85% |
| Kaiser Aluminum Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Arconic'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.
Arconic'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 |
|---|---|
| Arconic Corporation | Rolled Products 77.24 % |
| Nucor Corporation | Steel mills 63.56 % |
| Ati Inc | High Performance Materials & Components 56.92 % |
| Mueller Industries Inc | Piping Systems 63.75 % |
| United States Steel Corp | Flat Rolled Products 60.10 % |
| Alcoa Corp | Aluminum 79.58 % |
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).
Sign in to see all peers for Arconic Corporation.
Arconic'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arconic Corporation | 3,062 | 626,231 | -19,538 |
| Nucor Corporation | 55,866 | 1,093,970 | 98,667 |
| Arcelormittal | 53,505 | 475,596,899 | 25,139,535 |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | 33,312 | 1,426,297 | 111,065 |
| Ati Inc | 24,987 | 620,421 | 64,329 |
| Mueller Industries Inc | 13,486 | 964,639 | 177,331 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 268,704 | 1,008,399 | 164,762 |
Sign in to see all peers for Arconic Corporation.
Arconic'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 |
|---|---|
| Steel Dynamics Inc | US 92.24 % |
| Ati Inc | United States 60.14 % |
| Viavi Solutions Inc | United States 37.92 % |
| Pentair Plc | United States 71.92 % |
| Enpro Inc | United States 56.79 % |
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.
Sign in to see all peers for Arconic Corporation.
Arconic's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Miscellaneous Fabricated Products industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (65 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 10.75 % | 29.68 % (avg) | -18.9 pp |
| Operating Margin | -1.22 % | industry median | -10.0 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | -0.15 % | 11.51 % (avg) | -11.7 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 3.14 % | 8.98 % (avg) | -5.8 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.
Arconic's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Miscellaneous Fabricated Products industry average (65 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 | - | 26.8x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | - | 14.2x | - |
| P/B | 2.0x | 3.7x | -1.7x |
| Return on Equity | -17.32 % | industry aggregate | -28.69 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -1.73 % | 5.40 % (avg) | -7.13 % |
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.
Arconic's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | -62.92 % | 32.23 % | 19.42 % |
| Operating Margin | 1.41 % | -3.89 % | -0.52 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 1.23 % | -4.66 % | -0.78 % |
| 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.
Arconic's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Arconic's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Arconic 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.
Arconic'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 3.14 % vs industry average 8.98 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Arconic's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Arconic'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.
Arconic'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.
Arconic 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.
Arconic'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
No rule matched.
Weaknesses
- Operating margin 10.0 points below the industry median.
- Return on equity 28.7 points below the industry aggregate.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-2.2% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- Losing revenue share to the broader industry (-1.5 points over the past year).
- Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-11.7% 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.
Arconic'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arconic Corporation | 0.13 | 1.58 | 1.12 |
| Nucor Corporation | 0.52 | 2.76 | 0.31 |
| Arcelormittal | 0.24 | 1.36 | 0.05 |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | 0.31 | 3.12 | 0.46 |
| Ati Inc | 0.44 | 2.52 | 1.29 |
| Mueller Industries Inc | 2.68 | 5.17 | 0.00 |
Sign in to see all peers for Arconic Corporation.
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.
Arconic'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arconic Corporation | Q2 2023 | -21.9 % | -48.7 % |
| Nucor Corporation | Q2 2026 | +23.0 % | +81.3 % |
| Arcelormittal | Q4 2025 | -1.7 % | +135.0 % |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | Q2 2026 | +33.4 % | +76.2 % |
| Ati Inc | Q2 2026 | +10.6 % | +48.4 % |
| Mueller Industries Inc | Q2 2026 | +25.5 % | +0.5 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +8.0 % | +104.8 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Arconic Corporation.
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Arconic'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arconic Corporation | Q2 2023 | -23.6 % | +72.7 % |
| Nucor Corporation | Q2 2026 | +15.6 % | -40.1 % |
| Arcelormittal | Q4 2025 | +1.1 % | - |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | Q2 2026 | +30.0 % | -57.0 % |
| Ati Inc | Q2 2026 | +5.9 % | -4.9 % |
| Mueller Industries Inc | Q2 2026 | +31.5 % | +52.9 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Arconic Corporation.
Arconic's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arconic Corporation | - | - | - |
| Nucor Corporation | 9.14% | 9.96% | 14.49% |
| Arcelormittal | 3.32% | 4.09% | 5.74% |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | 9.66% | 10.53% | 17.76% |
| Ati Inc | 9.28% | 10.11% | 25.64% |
| Mueller Industries Inc | 21.93% | 24.78% | 25.84% |
Sign in to see all peers for Arconic Corporation.
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).
Arconic's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Arconic Corporation | - | 0.38 |
| Nucor Corporation | 19.51 | 1.55 |
| Arcelormittal | 16.97 | 0.87 |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | 20.94 | 1.62 |
| Ati Inc | 53.14 | 5.30 |
| Mueller Industries Inc | 15.88 | 2.89 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 2.71 | 0.44 |
Sign in to see all peers for Arconic Corporation.
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.
