Geospace Technologies's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Geospace Technologies (GEOS) 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: Geospace Technologies vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 91M vs -M combined for tracked competitors (100.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-30.3% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Scale: Geospace Technologies ranks #15 of 21 companies by market capitalization in the Scientific & Technical Instruments industry, holding 0.0% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Geospace Technologies 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 $0.17M compares with $4.39M for the peer group (0.0x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
GEOS Sales vs. its Competitors, Q3 2026
Geospace Technologies generated 100.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 100.00 % a year earlier.
For context: the Scientific & Technical Instruments industry grew revenue 12.8% year over year, combined, vs -35.6% for Geospace Technologies. Geospace Technologies's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.11% to 0.06%, a loss of 0.05 percentage points.
Geospace Technologies'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geospace Technologies Corp | No | No | No | Yes |
| Competitors combined (2) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (12) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 25.00 % (2 of 8) | 37.50 % (3 of 8) | 12.50 % (1 of 8) | 25.00 % (2 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.
GEOS Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
GEOS Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
GEOS Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
GEOS 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 | Equinor Asa | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Shell Plc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Geospace Technologies's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Geospace Technologies's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Publicly Traded Peers of Geospace Technologies Corp
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Geospace Technologies Corp | 63.25 | 90.66 |
| Shell Plc | 286,930.72 | 266,886.00 |
| Equinor Asa | 109,944.27 | 106,462.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 396,938.24 | 373,438.66 |
Sources: Geospace Technologies 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 Geospace Technologies Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Geospace Technologies's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| China National Petroleum Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| General Dynamics | Named by the company | 85% |
| ION Geophysical Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Moen | Named by the company | 85% |
| Raytheon | Named by the company | 85% |
| Sercel | Named by the company | 85% |
| Water Hero | Named by the company | 85% |
| Boeing | Named by the company | 85% |
| ESG | Named by the company | 85% |
| InApril AS | Named by the company | 85% |
| Magseis Fairfield ASA | Named by the company | 85% |
| PGS | Named by the company | 85% |
| Seismic Equipment Specialists | Named by the company | 85% |
| TGS | Named by the company | 85% |
| Badger | Named by the company | 85% |
| Dynamic Technologies | Named by the company | 85% |
| Geophysical Technologies | Named by the company | 85% |
| ISTI | Named by the company | 85% |
| Mueller | Named by the company | 85% |
| SAExploration | Named by the company | 85% |
| Alcatel-Lucent | Named by the company | 85% |
| SmartSolo | Named by the company | 85% |
| Watercop | Named by the company | 85% |
| CGG | Named by the company | 85% |
| Fugro | Named by the company | 85% |
| INOVA | Named by the company | 85% |
| Microseismic, Inc. | Named by the company | 85% |
| PXGEO | Named by the company | 85% |
| Sensus | Named by the company | 85% |
| Viridien | Named by the company | 85% |
| BGP, Inc. | Named by the company | 85% |
| Elbit Systems | Named by the company | 85% |
| Geophysical Technology | Named by the company | 85% |
| Lockheed Martin | Named by the company | 85% |
| Namometrics | Named by the company | 85% |
| Seabed Geosolutions | Named by the company | 85% |
| STRYDE | Named by the company | 85% |
| Avalon Sciences Ltd | Named by the company | 85% |
| Equinor Asa | Named by the company | 85% |
| Shell Plc | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Geospace Technologies'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.
Geospace Technologies'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 |
|---|---|
| Geospace Technologies Corp | Energy Solutions 37.02 % |
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).
Geospace Technologies'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Geospace Technologies Corp | 63 | 174,672 | -76,268 |
| Shell Plc | 286,931 | 3,139,835 | 213,165 |
| Equinor Asa | 109,944 | 1,971,518,519 | 93,666,667 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 396,875 | 4,389,541 | 272,497 |
Geospace Technologies'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 |
|---|---|
| Geospace Technologies Corp | US 56.35 % |
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.
Geospace Technologies's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 20 companies in Geospace Technologies's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Geospace Technologies ranks #15 of 20 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.01 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 3,027, indicating a highly 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 | Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc | 249,564 | 38.24 % |
| 2 | Kla Corporation | 245,900 | 37.68 % |
| 3 | Coherent Corp | 56,662 | 8.68 % |
| 4 | Rockwell Automation Inc | 48,348 | 7.41 % |
| 5 | Onto Innovation Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Trimble Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Nova Ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Camtek Ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Mirion Technologies Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | 908 Devices inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 15 | Geospace Technologies Corp | 64 | 0.01 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Geospace Technologies'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.
Geospace Technologies'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 908 Devices inc | 425 | 36.92 % |
| 11 | Syntec Optics Holdings Inc | 280 | 320.67 % |
| 12 | Quantum si Incorporated | 179 | -45.43 % |
| 13 | Owlet Inc | 142 | -41.00 % |
| 14 | Optex Systems Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 15 | Geospace Technologies Corp | 64 | -75.19 % |
| 16 | Odysight ai Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 17 | Birchtech Corp | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 18 | Multisensor Ai Holdings inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 19 | Us Nuclear Corp | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 20 | Flexpoint Sensor Systems Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Geospace Technologies'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.
Geospace Technologies's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Scientific & Technical Instruments industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (31 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 8.10 % | 44.10 % (avg) | -36.0 pp |
| Operating Margin | -45.24 % | industry median | -40.7 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | -20.27 % | 5.11 % (avg) | -25.4 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | - | 3.13 % (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.
Geospace Technologies's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Scientific & Technical Instruments industry average (31 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 | - | 54.1x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | - | 26.7x | - |
| P/B | 0.9x | 5.0x | -4.1x |
| Return on Equity | -35.04 % | industry aggregate | -52.71 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -17.69 % | -1.73 % (avg) | -15.96 % |
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.
Geospace Technologies'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 | 8.07 % | 31.21 % | -12.58 % | -6.85 % | 21.30 % | 38.53 % | -12.93 % | -21.09 % |
| Operating Margin | -21.78 % | 7.01 % | -21.71 % | -26.42 % | -16.15 % | 17.24 % | 1.71 % | -30.14 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -4.79 % | 2.01 % | -5.78 % | -7.52 % | -6.51 % | 9.13 % | 0.77 % | -11.24 % |
| P/E | - | 47.0x | - | - | - | 6.9x | - | - |
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.
Geospace Technologies's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Geospace Technologies's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Geospace Technologies 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.
Geospace Technologies's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Geospace Technologies'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.
Geospace Technologies falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.00x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 7.7% (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: Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc alone holds 38% 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.
Geospace Technologies'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 3,027 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Geospace Technologies's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Geospace Technologies'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.
Geospace Technologies'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.
Geospace Technologies falls in the Medium attractiveness / Low 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.
Geospace Technologies'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
No rule matched.
Weaknesses
- Operating margin 40.7 points below the industry median.
- Return on equity 52.7 points below the industry aggregate.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-30.3% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.00x).
- Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below, the standard financial-distress signal.
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- Industry dominated by Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc , holding 38.24 % of industry market cap.
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.
Geospace Technologies'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Geospace Technologies Corp | 0.64 | 2.99 | - |
| Shell Plc | 0.37 | 1.30 | 0.05 |
| Equinor Asa | 0.14 | 0.99 | 0.10 |
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.
Geospace Technologies'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Geospace Technologies Corp | Q2 2026 | -35.6 % | - |
| Shell Plc | Q4 2025 | -6.1 % | +9.7 % |
| Equinor Asa | Q4 2025 | +2.6 % | -42.7 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | -3.8 % | -8.6 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Geospace Technologies'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Geospace Technologies Corp | Q2 2026 | -9.9 % | -80.6 % |
| Shell Plc | Q4 2025 | - | - |
| Equinor Asa | Q4 2025 | +11.2 % | +14.9 % |
Geospace Technologies's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Geospace Technologies Corp | - | - | - |
| Shell Plc | 4.89% | 4.22% | 10.33% |
| Equinor Asa | 3.84% | 3.20% | 12.49% |
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).
Geospace Technologies's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Geospace Technologies Corp | - | 0.70 |
| Shell Plc | 16.09 | 1.08 |
| Equinor Asa | 21.80 | 1.03 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 17.16 | 1.06 |
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.