Columbus Mckinnon's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Columbus Mckinnon (CMCO) 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: Columbus Mckinnon vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 1,769M vs 40,910M combined for its competitors (4.1% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+22.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+6.7%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Columbus Mckinnon generated 107.3% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 10.3% for its competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its -4.7% net margin compares with 13.8% for the peer group.
- Scale: Columbus Mckinnon ranks #13 of 20 companies by market capitalization in the Construction & Mining Machinery industry, holding 0.2% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Columbus Mckinnon accounted for 4.7% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 2.6% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.24M compares with $0.53M for the peer group (0.5x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
CMCO Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Columbus Mckinnon reported revenue growth of 107.29 % year on year in Q2 2026, above its competitors' combined revenue growth of 10.30 %.
With a net margin of -4.73 %, Columbus Mckinnon reported lower profitability than its competitors (13.79 %).
Columbus Mckinnon generated 4.71 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 2.56 % a year earlier.
Columbus Mckinnon vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
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 Columbus Mckinnon 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 Columbus Mckinnon and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (2) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (2) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Columbus Mckinnon's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Construction & Mining Machinery industry grew revenue 15.3% year over year, combined, vs 107.3% for Columbus Mckinnon. Columbus Mckinnon's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.51% to 0.91%, a gain of 0.41 percentage points.
Columbus Mckinnon's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| Competitors combined (9) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (8) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 87.50 % (7 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.
CMCO Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
CMCO Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
CMCO Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
CMCO 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 | The Manitowoc Company Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Terex Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Regal Rexnord Corp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Huntsman Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | 3m Company | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Columbus Mckinnon's best-performing competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Columbus Mckinnon's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of Columbus Mckinnon Corp
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Columbus Mckinnon Corp |
554.59 | 1,768.51 |
 Caterpillar Inc |
277,828.38 | 74,729.00 |
 3m Company |
99,406.36 | 25,247.00 |
 Regal Rexnord Corp |
11,557.10 | 6,149.60 |
 Terex Corporation |
6,657.60 | 7,487.00 |
 Quaker Chemical Corporation |
2,624.17 | 2,026.06 |
| SUBTOTAL | 401,870.39 | 127,408.52 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Columbus Mckinnon Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Columbus Mckinnon's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Columbus Mckinnon reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Street | Company report | 85% |
| AMH | Company report | 85% |
| Verlinde | Company report | 85% |
| Conductix | Company report | 85% |
| Demag | Company report | 85% |
| Jet | Company report | 85% |
| Lifket/ChainMaster | Company report | 85% |
| Power Electronics International, Inc. | Company report | 85% |
| Abus | Company report | 85% |
| ACE World Companies | Company report | 85% |
| Elephant | Company report | 85% |
| Konecranes | Company report | 85% |
| Stuart Rush | Company report | 85% |
| Detroit Hoists | Company report | 85% |
| American Chain and Cable Company | Company report | 85% |
| Tractel | Company report | 85% |
| Cattron Holdings | Company report | 85% |
| Harbour Group | Company report | 85% |
| Ingersoll Rand | Company report | 85% |
| Laclede Chain Manufacturing | Company report | 85% |
| Pewag Chain | Company report | 85% |
| SWF | Company report | 85% |
| Campbell Chain | Company report | 85% |
| Fujit | Company report | 85% |
| Crosby Group | Company report | 85% |
| Harrington | Company report | 85% |
| Peerless Chain Company | Company report | 85% |
| Conductix-Wampfler | Company report | 85% |
| KEB GmbH | Company report | 85% |
| Nidec Corporation | Company report | 85% |
| Delachaux Group | Company report | 85% |
| Control Techniques | Company report | 85% |
| Kito | Company report | 85% |
| OMRON Corporation | Company report | 85% |
| Dorner | Company report | 85% |
| Terex | Company report | 85% |
| Cattron Group International | Company report | 85% |
| Brewer Tichner Company | Company report | 85% |
| Fujitec | Company report | 85% |
| STAHL CraneSystems | Company report | 85% |
| Emerson Electric | Company report | 85% |
| Harbor Group | Company report | 85% |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | Company report | 85% |
| Altra Industrial Motion Corp | Company report | 85% |
| The Manitowoc Company Inc | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Columbus Mckinnon's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 |
|---|---|
| Caterpillar Inc | Construction Industries 41.12 % |
| 3m Company | Safety and Industrial 48.33 % |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | Industrial Powertrain Solutions 40.90 % |
| Terex Corporation | Aerials 32.27 % |
| Huntsman Corporation | Polyurethanes 58.14 % |
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).
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | 555 | 242,261 | -47,411 |
| Caterpillar Inc | 277,828 | 633,297 | 91,873 |
| 3m Company | 99,406 | 417,306 | 58,579 |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | 11,557 | 210,603 | 7,955 |
| Terex Corporation | 6,658 | 699,720 | 18,505 |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | 2,624 | 431,076 | 20,700 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 401,316 | 526,131 | 61,738 |
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
Columbus Mckinnon's Geographic Revenue Exposure vs Peers
Revenue by country/region as reported in each company's most recent report. Disclosure granularity varies by filer (some report by country, others by broad region) and is shown as disclosed.| Company | Largest Market |
|---|---|
| Caterpillar Inc | Latin America -0.11 % |
| 3m Company | United States 46.28 % |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | North America 70.12 % |
| Terex Corporation | North America 82.25 % |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | Americas 46.65 % |
Source: revenue geography as reported in each company's reports (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 Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
Columbus Mckinnon's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 19 companies in Columbus Mckinnon's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Columbus Mckinnon ranks #13 of 19 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.17 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 7,519, indicating a highly concentrated market structure (see Methodology: Market Structure & Concentration).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Caterpillar Inc | 277,828 | 86.49 % |
| 2 | Cnh Industrial N v | 14,607 | 4.55 % |
| 3 | Applied Industrial Technologies Inc | 11,350 | 3.53 % |
| 4 | Terex Corporation | 6,669 | 2.08 % |
| 5 | Blue Bird Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Distribution Solutions Group Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Astec Industries Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Aebi Schmidt Holding Ag | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Douglas Dynamics Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | The Manitowoc Company Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 13 | Columbus Mckinnon Corp | 553 | 0.17 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Columbus Mckinnon's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-11-04.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Aebi Schmidt Holding Ag | 916 | 6.10 % |
| 9 | Douglas Dynamics Inc | 891 | 27.25 % |
| 10 | The Manitowoc Company Inc | 877 | 135.06 % |
| 11 | Miller Industries Inc | 617 | 34.41 % |
| 12 | Hyliion Holdings Corp | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 13 | Columbus Mckinnon Corp | 553 | 24.61 % |
| 14 | Hyster yale Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 15 | Wabash National Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 16 | Gencor Industries Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 17 | Aersale Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 18 | Hudson Technologies Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Columbus Mckinnon's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-11-04. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Columbus Mckinnon's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Construction & Mining Machinery industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (26 companies). See the full Construction & Mining Machinery industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 0.29 % | 8.16 % (avg) | -7.9 pp |
| Operating Margin | -0.12 % | industry median | -0.2 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 0.02 % | 3.83 % (avg) | -3.8 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | - | 14.52 % (avg) | - |
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.
Columbus Mckinnon's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Construction & Mining Machinery industry average (26 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 & Mining Machinery industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 40.2x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | - | 15.4x | - |
| P/B | 0.4x | 3.1x | -2.7x |
| Return on Equity | -0.27 % | industry aggregate | -28.94 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -0.06 % | -0.62 % (avg) | 0.56 % |
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.
Columbus Mckinnon's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in company reports.| Metric | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 8.00 % | -4.27 % | -21.94 % | 28.57 % | 11.48 % | 6.99 % | -2.08 % | 2.14 % |
| Operating Margin | 7.02 % | 11.67 % | 6.85 % | 7.61 % | 10.09 % | 10.91 % | 7.66 % | 3.87 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 4.64 % | 7.36 % | 3.10 % | 3.27 % | 4.27 % | 4.63 % | 3.04 % | 1.61 % |
| P/E | 24.9x | 13.5x | 106.8x | 48.2x | 20.2x | 20.8x | 110.0x | 77.7x |
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.
Columbus Mckinnon's Strategic Group Map
Columbus Mckinnon 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.
Columbus Mckinnon's trailing-12-month revenue growth of 55.3% and operating margin of -0.1% compares with an average of 25.9% growth and 2.7% margin across its 8 closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC -- Columbus Mckinnon sits above that peer average on growth and below 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.
Columbus Mckinnon's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
See Methodology: BCG Growth-Share Matrix for how relative share and growth are calculated and thresholded.
Columbus Mckinnon falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.00x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 8.8% (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. A caveat worth reading alongside this chart: Caterpillar Inc alone holds 86% of this industry's market cap. In an industry this dominated by one leader, the framework will place nearly every OTHER company in "Dog" or "Question Mark" purely because relative share is measured against that leader, regardless of how strong those other companies actually are on their own fundamentals. Check the Profitability, Valuation and Financial Strength sections above before treating this quadrant label as a verdict.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 | Low | Industry HHI of 7,519 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Columbus Mckinnon's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Columbus Mckinnon's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Columbus Mckinnon falls in the Medium attractiveness / Medium strength cell: Selective.
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.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 (+22.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Outperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 28.9 points below the industry aggregate.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.00x).
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- Industry dominated by Caterpillar Inc, holding 86.49 % of industry market cap.
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | 0.17 | 2.02 | 1.58 |
| Caterpillar Inc | 0.19 | 1.39 | 0.99 |
| 3m Company | - | 1.47 | 3.62 |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | 0.36 | 2.20 | 1.01 |
| Terex Corporation | 0.30 | 1.89 | 0.95 |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | 0.42 | 2.45 | 0.95 |
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
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.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | Q3 2026 | +107.3 % | - |
| Caterpillar Inc | Q2 2026 | +24.0 % | +64.9 % |
| 3m Company | Q3 2026 | +1.0 % | +63.3 % |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | Q3 2026 | +6.1 % | - |
| Terex Corporation | Q3 2026 | +58.4 % | +75.4 % |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | Q3 2026 | +10.3 % | -1.7 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +18.3 % | +57.6 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Columbus Mckinnon'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | Q3 2026 | +106.7 % | +225.1 % |
| Caterpillar Inc | Q2 2026 | +18.3 % | +16.3 % |
| 3m Company | Q3 2026 | +0.2 % | +17.4 % |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | Q3 2026 | +5.9 % | +11.1 % |
| Terex Corporation | Q3 2026 | +61.9 % | - |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | Q3 2026 | +12.2 % | -14.2 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
Columbus Mckinnon's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | - | - | - |
| Caterpillar Inc | 11.11% | 17.90% | 54.18% |
| 3m Company | 9.60% | 13.24% | 93.07% |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | 1.69% | 1.57% | 3.38% |
| Terex Corporation | 2.14% | 2.29% | 4.71% |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | 3.42% | 3.45% | 7.01% |
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
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).
Columbus Mckinnon's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | - | 0.31 |
| Caterpillar Inc | 25.88 | 3.72 |
| 3m Company | 28.35 | 3.94 |
| Regal Rexnord Corp | 50.15 | 1.88 |
| Terex Corporation | 29.49 | 0.89 |
| Quaker Chemical Corporation | 27.06 | 1.30 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 27.91 | 3.15 |
Sign in to see all peers for Columbus Mckinnon Corp.
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.