Competition & Peer Data API & CSV Delivery

Eaton Vance's Competitiveness

A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Eaton Vance (EV) 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.

Peer Data As of Q4 2020
Competitors Tracked
-
Publicly traded peers
Peer Group Market Share
100.00 %
vs 100.00 % a year ago
Revenue Growth Y/Y
4.00 %
Q4 2020
Net Margin
-7.53 %
Q4 2020

Key Findings: Eaton Vance vs Its Competitors

  • TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 1,730M vs -M combined for tracked competitors (100.0% combined share).
  • Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+4.3% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
  • Peer revenue share: Eaton Vance 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).

EV Sales vs. its Competitors, Q4 2020

Eaton Vance generated 100.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 100.00 % a year earlier.

API endpoints for this dataset
https://api.csimarket.com/api/v1/companies/EV/competitors
https://api.csimarket.com/api/v1/companies/EV/relationships
https://api.csimarket.com/api/v1/companies/EV/similar
Programmatic access for models, analytics, and integration workflows.

For context: the Investment Services industry grew revenue -2.0% year over year, combined, vs 4.0% for Eaton Vance. Eaton Vance's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.17% to 0.18%, a gain of 0.01 percentage points.

Eaton Vance'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
Eaton Vance Corp Yes Yes No No
High-Confidence Competitors (1) 100% 100% 0% 0%
Similar Growth & Profitability (8) 87.50 % (7 of 8) 75.00 % (6 of 8) 0.00 % (0 of 8) 42.90 % (3 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.

Market Share of the Peer Group, Q4 2020

100%market share
  • Eaton Vance100.0%
  • Competitors combined0.0%

Share of combined quarterly revenue of Eaton Vance and its 0 tracked competitors.

See Eaton Vance's full market share breakdown »

EV Stock Performance relative to its Competitors

EV Competitors (weighted) Percent change over the selected range

EV Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors

EV High-Confidence Competitors (equal-weighted, 1) Percent change over the selected range

EV Stock Performance relative to Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors

EV Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors (equal-weighted, 8) Percent change over the selected range

Eaton Vance's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers

The investment management business is a highly competitive global industry and we are subject to substantial competition in each of our principal product categories and distribution channels. There are few barriers to entry for new firms and consolidation within the industry continues to alter the competitive landscape. According to the Investment Company Institute, there were more than 800 investment managers at the end of calendar 2014 that competed in the U.S. mutual fund market. We compete with these firms, many of which have substantially greater resources, on the basis of investment performance, diversity of products, distribution capability, scope and quality of service, fees charged, reputation and the ability to develop new investment strategies and products to meet the changing needs of investors.

In the retail fund channel, we compete with other mutual fund management, distribution and service companies that distribute through affiliated and unaffiliated sales forces, broker-dealers and direct sales to the public. According to the Investment Company Institute, at the end of calendar 2014 there were almost 9,300 open-end registered funds of varying sizes and investment objectives whose shares were being offered to the public in the United States. We rely primarily on intermediaries to distribute our products and pursue sales relationships with all types of intermediaries to broaden our distribution network. A failure to maintain strong relationships with intermediaries that distribute our products in the retail fund channel could adversely affect our gross and net sales, assets under management, revenue and financial condition.

We are also subject to substantial competition in the retail managed account channel from other investment management firms. Sponsors of retail managed account programs limit the number of approved managers within their programs and firms compete based on investment performance and other considerations to win and maintain positions in these programs.

In the high-net-worth and institutional separate account channels, we compete with other investment management firms based on the breadth of product offerings, investment performance, strength of reputation and the scope and quality of client service.

Eaton Vance's Competitors Named by the Company

Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.
Competitor Basis Confidence Active Sources
Investment Company Named by the company 85% 2022 to 2026 3
Competitor Evidence Detail

Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Eaton Vance'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.