Luther Burbank's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Luther Burbank (LBC) 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: Luther Burbank vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 119M vs 761M combined for tracked competitors (13.5% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-41.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs decelerating (-20.4%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Luther Burbank generated -61.1% revenue growth year over year in Q3 2023, vs -18.8% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 10.8% net margin compares with 33.1% for the peer group.
- Peer revenue share: Luther Burbank accounted for 10.4% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 19.5% a year earlier.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
LBC Sales vs. its Competitors, Q3 2023
Luther Burbank reported revenue contraction of 61.11 % year on year in Q3 2023, below its competitors' combined revenue change of -18.79 %.
With a net margin of 10.84 %, Luther Burbank reported lower profitability than its competitors (33.13 %).
Luther Burbank generated 10.40 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 19.51 % a year earlier.
Luther Burbank vs. its Competitors, Q3 2023
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 Luther Burbank and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Luther Burbank Corp | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (5) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Luther Burbank's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Regional Banks industry grew revenue -15.0% year over year, combined, vs -61.1% for Luther Burbank. Luther Burbank's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.03% to 0.01%, a loss of 0.02 percentage points.
Luther Burbank'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luther Burbank Corp | Yes | No | No | No |
| Competitors combined (1) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 62.50 % (5 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.
LBC Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
LBC 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 | Wafd Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Luther Burbank's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Publicly Traded Peers of Luther Burbank Corp
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Luther Burbank Corp | 465.95 | 119.20 |
| Wafd Inc | 2,304.34 | 761.06 |
| SUBTOTAL | 2,770.29 | 880.27 |
Sources: Luther Burbank Corp'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 Luther Burbank Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Luther Burbank's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Treasury | Named by the company | 85% |
| Wafd Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Luther Burbank'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.
Luther Burbank'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luther Burbank Corp | 466 | - | - |
| Wafd Inc | 2,304 | 903,874 | 304,597 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 2,304 | 903,874 | 304,597 |
Luther Burbank's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Regional Banks industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (130 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 107.84 % | 64.14 % (avg) | +43.7 pp |
| Operating Margin | 43.05 % | industry median | +6.3 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 114.09 % | 49.90 % (avg) | +64.2 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 0.68 % | 3.18 % (avg) | -2.5 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.
Luther Burbank's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Regional Banks industry average (130 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 | 12.5x | 15.6x | -3.1x |
| EV / EBITDA | -0.5x | 6.2x | -6.6x |
| P/B | 0.7x | 1.3x | -0.6x |
| Return on Equity | 5.19 % | industry aggregate | -8.05 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 0.58 % | 3.20 % (avg) | -2.62 % |
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.
Luther Burbank's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | - | - | 40.24 % | -2.94 % |
| Operating Margin | - | 43.39 % | 67.71 % | 63.98 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | - | 2.71 % | 7.57 % | 1.36 % |
| P/E | - | 13.6x | 8.4x | 7.4x |
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.
Luther Burbank's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Luther Burbank's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Luther Burbank 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.
Luther Burbank'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 0.68 % vs industry average 3.18 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Luther Burbank's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Luther Burbank'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.
Luther Burbank'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.
Luther Burbank falls in the High attractiveness / Medium strength cell: Invest / Grow.
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.
Luther Burbank'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 6.3 points above the industry median.
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 8.1 points below the industry aggregate.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-41.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Opportunities
- Industry revenue growing at a healthy 12.3% median pace.
Threats
- Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-20.4% 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.
Luther Burbank'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luther Burbank Corp | - | 1.11 | 0.09 |
| Wafd Inc | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.83 |
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.
Luther Burbank'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luther Burbank Corp | Q3 2023 | -61.1 % | -90.9 % |
| Wafd Inc | Q2 2026 | +5.6 % | +6.7 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | -7.6 % | -18.0 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Luther Burbank'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luther Burbank Corp | Q3 2023 | +500.2 % | -45.4 % |
| Wafd Inc | Q2 2026 | - | +40.2 % |
Luther Burbank's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luther Burbank Corp | 0.44% | 0.44% | 5.19% |
| Wafd Inc | 0.94% | 2.35% | 8.49% |
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).
Luther Burbank's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Luther Burbank Corp | 12.87 | 3.91 |
| Wafd Inc | 9.85 | 3.03 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 9.47 | 3.15 |
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.