Archer Daniels Midland Co's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Archer Daniels Midland Co (ADM) 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: Archer Daniels Midland Co vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 82,099M vs 91,510M combined for tracked competitors (47.3% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+10.5% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+11.9%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Archer Daniels Midland Co generated 7.2% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 11.3% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 4.0% net margin compares with -11.2% for the peer group.
- Scale: Archer Daniels Midland Co ranks #1 of 45 companies by market capitalization in the Agricultural Production industry, holding 25.4% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Archer Daniels Midland Co accounted for 47.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 47.9% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $1.98M compares with $1.54M for the peer group (1.3x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
ADM Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Archer Daniels Midland Co reported revenue growth of 7.16 % year on year in Q2 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 11.29 %.
With a net margin of 4.02 %, Archer Daniels Midland Co achieved higher profitability than its competitors (-11.19 %).
Archer Daniels Midland Co generated 46.97 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 47.92 % a year earlier.
Archer Daniels Midland Co 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 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 Archer Daniels Midland Co and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Archer daniels midland Co | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (7) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (3) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Archer Daniels Midland Co's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Agricultural Production industry grew revenue 16.8% year over year, combined, vs 7.2% for Archer Daniels Midland Co. Archer Daniels Midland Co's share of combined industry revenue moved from 21.61% to 19.84%, a loss of 1.78 percentage points.
Archer Daniels Midland Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Archer daniels midland Co | Yes | No | No | No |
| Competitors combined (20) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (12) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (5) |
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.
ADM Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
ADM Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
ADM Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
5 Best-Performing Tracked Competitors, Trailing 12 Months
| # | Competitor | TTM Share Price Return | vs U.S.A. 500 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alto Ingredients Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Green Plains Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Cresud Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Rex American Resources Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Bunge Global Sa | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Archer Daniels Midland Co's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Archer Daniels Midland Co's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of Archer daniels midland Co
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Archer daniels midland Co | 38,984.30 | 82,099.00 |
| Bunge Global Sa | 21,346.72 | 80,547.00 |
| Dow Inc | 20,114.27 | 39,331.00 |
| General Mills Inc | 18,073.44 | 18,296.60 |
| The J M Smucker Company | 12,886.08 | 9,157.10 |
| Conagra Brands Inc | 6,787.43 | 11,281.40 |
| SUBTOTAL | 126,588.06 | 317,519.92 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Archer daniels midland Co.
Sources: Archer daniels midland Co'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 Archer daniels midland Co versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Archer Daniels Midland Co's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Futurefuel Corp | Named by the company | 85% |
| Navios Maritime Holdings Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Benson Hill Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Comstock Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Adm Tronics Unlimited Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Genco Shipping and Trading Limited | Named by the company | 85% |
| Exozymes Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Navios South American Logistics Inc. | Named by the company | 85% |
| Bunge Global Sa | Named by the company | 85% |
| Ingredion Incorporated | Named by the company | 85% |
| Cannaisseur Group Inc. | Named by the company | 85% |
| Renewable Energy Group Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Free Flow Usa Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Lake Area Corn Processors Llc | Named by the company | 85% |
| South Dakota Soybean Processors Llc | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Archer Daniels Midland Co'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.
Archer Daniels Midland Co'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 |
|---|---|
| Archer daniels midland Co | Ag Services and Oilseeds 76.86 % |
| Bunge Global Sa | Soybean Processing and Refining 60.69 % |
| General Mills Inc | United States Meals and Baking Solutions Operating Unit 24.61 % |
| The J M Smucker Company | U.S. Retail Coffee 38.83 % |
| Conagra Brands Inc | Grocery And Snacks 41.87 % |
| Seaboard Corporation | Commodity Trading and Milling 53.08 % |
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 Archer daniels midland Co.
Archer Daniels Midland Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Archer daniels midland Co | 38,984 | 1,978,480 | 42,872 |
| Bunge Global Sa | 21,347 | 2,369,029 | 21,000 |
| Dow Inc | 20,114 | 1,136,734 | -75,116 |
| General Mills Inc | 18,073 | 609,887 | -29,703 |
| The J M Smucker Company | 12,886 | 1,308,157 | 32,786 |
| Conagra Brands Inc | 6,787 | 648,356 | -110,126 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 87,604 | 1,539,262 | 17,728 |
Sign in to see all peers for Archer daniels midland Co.
Archer Daniels Midland Co'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 |
|---|---|
| The J M Smucker Company | United States 94.68 % |
| S and w Seed Co | AR 1.86 % |
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.
Archer Daniels Midland Co's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 39 companies in Archer Daniels Midland Co's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Archer Daniels Midland Co ranks #1 of 39 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 25.42 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,571, indicating a moderately concentrated market structure (U.S. antitrust guidance: below 1,500 unconcentrated, 1,500 to 2,500 moderately concentrated, above 2,500 highly concentrated).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Archer daniels midland Co | 39,540 | 25.42 % |
| 2 | Nutrien Ltd | 35,003 | 22.51 % |
| 3 | Bunge Global Sa | 21,394 | 13.76 % |
| 4 | Cf Industries Holdings inc | 18,057 | 11.61 % |
| 5 | Darling Ingredients Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Mosaic Co | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Icl Group Ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Seaboard Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Scotts Miracle gro Co | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Andersons Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Archer Daniels Midland Co's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-09-28.
Archer Daniels Midland Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Archer daniels midland Co | 39,540 | 33.49 % |
| 2 | Nutrien Ltd | 35,003 | 23.72 % |
| 3 | Bunge Global Sa | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 4 | Cf Industries Holdings inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 5 | Darling Ingredients Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 6 | Mosaic Co | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Archer Daniels Midland Co's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-09-28. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Archer Daniels Midland Co's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Agricultural Production industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (58 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 6.87 % | 21.12 % (avg) | -14.2 pp |
| Operating Margin | - | industry median | - |
| EBITDA Margin | 4.69 % | 2.16 % (avg) | +2.5 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 1.36 % | 4.73 % (avg) | -3.4 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.
Archer Daniels Midland Co's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Agricultural Production industry average (58 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 | 21.9x | 20.8x | +1.2x |
| EV / EBITDA | 9.7x | 9.8x | -0.1x |
| P/B | 1.7x | 1.7x | 0.0x |
| Return on Equity | 7.77 % | industry aggregate | 0.14 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | - | 1.23 % (avg) | - |
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.
Archer Daniels Midland Co's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 5.78 % | 0.49 % | -0.47 % | 32.47 % | 19.13 % | -7.50 % | -8.95 % | -6.15 % |
| Operating Margin | 2.87 % | 2.09 % | 2.62 % | 3.32 % | 4.08 % | 3.95 % | 1.79 % | 1.18 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 3.91 % | 2.74 % | 3.26 % | 4.97 % | 6.91 % | 6.25 % | 2.81 % | 1.78 % |
| P/E | 13.9x | 18.1x | 16.0x | 13.9x | 11.9x | 10.9x | 14.4x | 27.3x |
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.
Archer Daniels Midland Co's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Archer Daniels Midland Co's largest competitor by market cap) against industry revenue growth, using the standard textbook thresholds (1.0x share, 10% growth) a common framework, not a precision instrument.
Archer Daniels Midland Co falls in the Cash Cow quadrant: relative market share of 1.13x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 4.2% (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.
Archer Daniels Midland Co'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 | Moderate | Industry HHI of 1,571 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | Lower than typical for the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 1.36 % vs industry average 4.73 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Archer Daniels Midland Co's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Archer Daniels Midland Co'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.
Archer Daniels Midland Co'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.
Archer Daniels Midland Co 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.
Archer Daniels Midland Co'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
- Market leader by capitalization in its industry (#1 of 39, 25.42 % share).
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+10.5% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Outperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
Weaknesses
No rule matched.
Opportunities
- A meaningful share of tracked competitors (30.00 %) show financial-distress signals, a possible opening to gain share.
Threats
- Losing revenue share to the broader industry (-1.8 points over the past year).
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.
Archer Daniels Midland Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Archer daniels midland Co | 0.47 | 1.36 | 0.36 |
| Bunge Global Sa | 0.17 | 1.70 | 0.87 |
| Dow Inc | 0.37 | 1.86 | 0.99 |
| General Mills Inc | 0.07 | 0.65 | 2.07 |
| The J M Smucker Company | - | 0.83 | 1.24 |
| Conagra Brands Inc | 0.07 | 0.88 | 0.98 |
Sign in to see all peers for Archer daniels midland Co.
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.
Archer Daniels Midland Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Archer daniels midland Co | Q2 2026 | +7.2 % | +320.3 % |
| Bunge Global Sa | Q1 2026 | +87.8 % | -63.2 % |
| Dow Inc | Q1 2026 | -6.1 % | - |
| General Mills Inc | Q3 2026 | -2.8 % | -67.0 % |
| The J M Smucker Company | Q2 2026 | +5.0 % | - |
| Conagra Brands Inc | Q2 2026 | +3.3 % | - |
| PEERS TOTAL | +22.1 % | +43.9 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Archer daniels midland Co.
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Archer Daniels Midland Co'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Archer daniels midland Co | Q2 2026 | +4.8 % | -10.8 % |
| Bunge Global Sa | Q1 2026 | +91.0 % | +8.4 % |
| Dow Inc | Q1 2026 | -6.2 % | -26.7 % |
| General Mills Inc | Q3 2026 | -2.8 % | -17.4 % |
| The J M Smucker Company | Q2 2026 | -24.3 % | +4.9 % |
| Conagra Brands Inc | Q2 2026 | +5.0 % | +28.3 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Archer daniels midland Co.
Archer Daniels Midland Co's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Archer daniels midland Co | 3.33% | 5.61% | 7.77% |
| Bunge Global Sa | 1.68% | 2.67% | 4.47% |
| Dow Inc | - | - | - |
| General Mills Inc | - | - | - |
| The J M Smucker Company | 1.36% | 1.58% | 3.92% |
| Conagra Brands Inc | - | - | - |
Sign in to see all peers for Archer daniels midland Co.
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).
Archer Daniels Midland Co's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Archer daniels midland Co | 22.03 | 0.47 |
| Bunge Global Sa | 24.96 | 0.27 |
| Dow Inc | - | 0.51 |
| General Mills Inc | - | 0.99 |
| The J M Smucker Company | 56.21 | 1.41 |
| Conagra Brands Inc | - | 0.60 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 28.19 | 0.40 |
Sign in to see all peers for Archer daniels midland Co.
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.