Universal Display's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Universal Display (OLED) 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: Universal Display vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 628M vs -M combined for its competitors (100.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+2.1% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Scale: Universal Display ranks #21 of 71 companies by market capitalization in the IT Infrastructure industry, holding 0.6% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Universal Display accounted for 100.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 100.0% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $1.34M compares with $0.46M for the peer group (2.9x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
OLED Sales vs. its Competitors, Q3 2026
Universal Display generated 100.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 100.00 % a year earlier.
API endpoints for this dataset
For context: the IT Infrastructure industry grew revenue 26.2% year over year, combined, vs 15.3% for Universal Display. Universal Display's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.25% to 0.23%, a loss of 0.02 percentage points.
Universal Display's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | Yes | No | No | No |
| Competitors combined (2) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 12.50 % (1 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 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.
OLED Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
OLED Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
OLED 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 | Outfront Media Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Lg Display Co Ltd | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Universal Display's best-performing competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Universal Display's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Display Panel Industry Competitors
Numerous domestic and foreign companies have developed or are developing and improving LCD, which includes quantum dot LCDs (which are sometimes referred to as QLEDs), and other display technologies that compete with our OLED display technologies. We believe that OLED display technologies can compete with LCDs, QLEDs and other display technologies for many product applications on the basis of lower power consumption, better contrast ratios, faster video rates, form factor and lower manufacturing cost. However, other companies may succeed in continuing to improve these competing display technologies, or in developing new display technologies, that are superior to OLED display technologies in various respects. We cannot predict the timing or extent to which such improvements or developments may occur.
Lighting Industry Competitors
Although there has been a movement to phase out traditional incandescent bulbs throughout many countries, traditional incandescent bulbs and fluorescent lamps remain well-entrenched products in the lighting industry. In addition, compact fluorescent lamps and solid-state LEDs have been introduced into the market and would compete with OLED lighting products. LEDs have realized significant market adoption in the general lighting market. Having attributes different from fluorescent lamps and LEDs, OLEDs may compete directly with these products for certain lighting applications. However, manufacturers of LEDs and compact fluorescent lamps may succeed in more broadly adapting their products to various lighting applications, or others may develop competing solid-state lighting technologies that are superior to OLEDs. Again, we cannot predict whether or when this might occur.
OLED Technologies and Materials Competitors
Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) developed and patented the original fluorescent OLED technology in 1987. Cambridge Display Technology, Ltd. (CDT), which was acquired by Sumitomo Chemical Company in 2007, developed and patented polymer OLED technology in 1989. Display and lighting manufacturers, including customers of ours, are engaged in their own OLED research, development and commercialization activities, and have developed and may continue to develop proprietary OLED technologies that are necessary or useful for commercial OLED devices. In addition, other material manufacturers, such as Sumitomo, Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. (Idemitsu Kosan), Merck KGaA, Cynora Gmbh and Kyulux Inc., are selling or sampling competing OLED materials to customers, including companies to which we sell our proprietary PHOLED materials.
Our licensing business is based on our control of a broad portfolio of OLED-related device patents and technologies. We believe this portfolio includes fundamental patents in the field of phosphorescent OLED materials and devices, as well as certain additional complementary OLED technologies. As discussed above, alternative technologies, such as fluorescent OLED emitter materials, exist and could be competitive to our phosphorescent OLED material solutions. However, fluorescent materials have characteristics that we believe many market participants consider less desirable than those of phosphorescent materials. Suppliers of fluorescent emitter materials include Doosan Solus, Dow Chemical (previously Gracel Display), Idemitsu Kosan and SFC Co. Ltd. Fluorescent materials may also be viewed as complementary in that they can be used in the same OLED stack as phosphorescent materials.
The competitive landscape with respect to our host materials business is characterized by a larger number of established chemical material suppliers who have long-term relationships with many of our existing customers and licensees. We have elected to partner with certain of these companies to manufacture and deliver host solutions to our customers, as well as selling our host materials directly to device manufacturers. We believe our competitive advantage stems, in part, from our deep knowledge of our phosphorescent emitter materials, which are complementary with the host solutions. We believe that our understanding of phosphorescent emitter materials enables us to create host material solutions that are especially well suited for use with a certain class of emitter materials that are implemented commercially today. However, we note that many of our technology partners have their own host solutions and the competitive landscape includes many well-established companies such as Solus, Advanced Materials Co., Dow Chemical, Duksan Neolux Co., Ltd., Idemitsu Kosan, Merck KGaA, NSCC and Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. These companies have significant resources, and some may aggressively pursue such business in the future.
Our existing business relationships with SDC and other product manufacturers suggest that our OLED technologies and materials, particularly our PHOLED technologies and materials, may achieve a significant level of market penetration in the display and lighting industries. However, others, such as those working to develop thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) and micro-LED alternative technologies, may succeed in developing new OLED technologies, materials and alternative solutions that may supplement or be utilized in place of ours. We cannot be sure of the extent to which product manufacturers will adopt and continue to utilize our OLED technologies and materials for the production of commercial displays and lighting products.
Publicly Traded Peers of Universal Display Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Universal Display Corporation |
4,043.47 | 628.31 |
 Outfront Media Inc |
5,465.22 | 1,932.90 |
 Lg Display Co Ltd |
- | 24,003.38 |
| SUBTOTAL | 9,508.70 | 26,564.58 |
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Universal Display Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Universal Display's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Universal Display reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Kyulux Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Sumitomo Chemical Company | Company report | 85% |
| Duksan Neolux Co | Company report | 85% |
| Materials Competitors Eastman Kodak Company | Company report | 85% |
| SFC Co. Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Idemitsu Kosan Co | Company report | 85% |
| Samsung SDI Co. Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Cambridge Display Technology | Company report | 85% |
| Advanced Materials Co | Company report | 85% |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Universal Display's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|
| Outfront Media Inc | Billboard Operating 73.12 % |
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).
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | 4,043 | 1,339,676 | 491,721 |
| Outfront Media Inc | 5,465 | 973,263 | 123,464 |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | - | 445,406 | 5,243 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 5,465 | 464,167 | 9,445 |
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | KR 63.12 % |
| Outfront Media Inc | United States 100.00 % |
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.
Universal Display's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 66 companies in Universal Display's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Universal Display ranks #21 of 66 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.59 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,082, indicating a unconcentrated market structure (see Methodology: Market Structure & Concentration).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Danaher Corporation | 162,925 | 23.50 % |
| 2 | Amphenol Corporation | 96,161 | 13.87 % |
| 3 | Vertiv Holdings Co | 71,818 | 10.36 % |
| 4 | Ametek Inc | 52,561 | 7.58 % |
| 5 | Roper Technologies Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Keysight Technologies inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Teradyne Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Veralto Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Hubbell Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Fortive Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 21 | Universal Display Corporation | 4,122 | 0.59 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Universal Display's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-11-06.
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | Vicor Corporation | 7,007 | 54.41 % |
| 17 | Sensata Technologies Holding Plc | 5,767 | 23.63 % |
| 18 | Impinj Inc | 5,303 | -6.41 % |
| 19 | Itron Inc | 4,391 | -7.99 % |
| 20 | Mercury Systems Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 21 | Universal Display Corporation | 4,122 | -40.19 % |
| 22 | Materion Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 23 | Vishay Intertechnology Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 24 | Neogenomics Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 25 | Cohu Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 26 | Aehr Test Systems | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Universal Display's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-11-06. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Universal Display's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the IT Infrastructure industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (97 companies). See the full IT Infrastructure industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 74.87 % | 32.80 % (avg) | +42.1 pp |
| Operating Margin | 34.59 % | industry median | +14.5 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 52.38 % | 5.03 % (avg) | +47.4 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 13.30 % | 4.57 % (avg) | +8.7 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.
Universal Display's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the IT Infrastructure industry average (97 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 IT Infrastructure industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | 16.6x | 36.8x | -20.1x |
| EV / EBITDA | 11.0x | 20.6x | -9.6x |
| P/B | 2.2x | 4.4x | -2.2x |
| Return on Equity | 13.54 % | industry aggregate | -3.38 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 6.21 % | 0.27 % (avg) | 5.94 % |
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.
Universal Display'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 | -26.28 % | 63.76 % | 5.85 % | 29.07 % | 11.40 % | -6.58 % | 12.35 % | 0.50 % |
| Operating Margin | 22.93 % | 39.08 % | 36.73 % | 41.13 % | 43.32 % | 37.70 % | 36.90 % | 38.21 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 4.01 % | 9.53 % | 8.27 % | 10.19 % | 10.45 % | 7.63 % | 7.45 % | 7.04 % |
| P/E | 75.1x | 69.0x | 82.2x | 41.1x | 25.8x | 38.9x | 38.3x | 25.6x |
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.
Universal Display's Strategic Group Map
Universal Display 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.
Universal Display's trailing-12-month revenue growth of -2.0% and operating margin of 34.6% compares with an average of 7.3% growth and 21.9% margin across its 8 closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC -- Universal Display sits below that peer average on growth and above 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.
Universal Display's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
See Methodology: BCG Growth-Share Matrix for how relative share and growth are calculated and thresholded.
Universal Display falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.03x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 9.3% (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.
Universal Display'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 | High | Industry HHI of 1,082 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | High (capital intensive) | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 13.30 % vs industry average 4.57 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Universal Display's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Universal Display's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Universal Display falls in the Low attractiveness / Medium strength cell: Harvest.
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.
Universal Display'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 14.5 points above the industry median.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+2.1% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.03x).
Opportunities
- Trades at a lower P/E than the industry average (16.6x vs 36.8x) despite a higher return on invested capital -- a possible re-rating opportunity.
Threats
- High capital intensity requires continuous reinvestment just to keep pace with the industry.
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | 1.17 | 8.86 | 0.00 |
| Outfront Media Inc | 0.12 | 0.80 | 3.94 |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | 0.16 | 0.73 | 0.06 |
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.
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | Q3 2026 | +15.3 % | +79.3 % |
| Outfront Media Inc | Q2 2026 | +13.5 % | +298.5 % |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | Q4 2025 | +22.9 % | - |
| PEERS TOTAL | +22.6 % | - |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Universal Display'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | Q3 2026 | +23.1 % | -66.8 % |
| Outfront Media Inc | Q2 2026 | +6.3 % | -33.1 % |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | Q4 2025 | +17.6 % | -19.8 % |
Universal Display's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | 12.10% | 12.84% | 13.54% |
| Outfront Media Inc | 4.66% | 4.04% | 37.60% |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | 1.13% | 1.75% | 3.88% |
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).
Universal Display's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Universal Display Corporation | 17.90 | 6.44 |
| Outfront Media Inc | 22.15 | 2.83 |
| Lg Display Co Ltd | - | - |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 12.54 | 0.36 |
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.