Williams Companies Inc's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Williams Companies Inc (WMB) 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: Williams Companies Inc vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 12,204M vs 1,153,729M combined for tracked competitors (1.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is holding steady (+0.1% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+19.6%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Williams Companies Inc generated 9.8% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 38.5% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 28.7% net margin compares with 16.5% for the peer group.
- Scale: Williams Companies Inc ranks #2 of 49 companies by market capitalization in the Natural Gas Utilities industry, holding 8.6% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Williams Companies Inc accounted for 0.9% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 1.1% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $2.04M compares with $2.26M for the peer group (0.9x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
WMB Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Williams Companies Inc reported revenue growth of 9.78 % year on year in Q2 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 38.46 %.
With a net margin of 28.69 %, Williams Companies Inc achieved higher profitability than its competitors (16.47 %).
Williams Companies Inc generated 0.88 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 1.10 % a year earlier.
Williams Companies Inc vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
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 Williams Companies Inc and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Williams companies inc | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Williams Companies Inc's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Natural Gas Utilities industry grew revenue 24.5% year over year, combined, vs 9.8% for Williams Companies Inc. Williams Companies Inc's share of combined industry revenue moved from 1.17% to 1.03%, a loss of 0.14 percentage points.
Williams Companies Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Williams companies inc | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Competitors combined (103) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (6) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 62.50 % (5 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.
WMB Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
WMB Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
WMB 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 | Blue Dolphin Energy Co | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Calumet Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Zion Oil and Gas Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Gran Tierra Energy Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Par Pacific Holdings Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Williams Companies Inc's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Williams Companies Inc's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
For Williams Partners’ gas pipeline business, the natural gas industry has undergone significant change over the past two decades. A highly-liquid competitive commodity market in natural gas and increasingly competitive markets for natural gas services, including competitive secondary markets in pipeline capacity, have developed. More recently large reserves of shale gas have been discovered, in many cases much closer to major market centers. As a result, pipeline capacity is being used more efficiently and competition among pipeline suppliers to connect growing supply to market has increased.
Local distribution company (LDC) and electric industry restructuring by states
have affected pipeline markets. Pipeline operators are increasingly challenged
to accommodate the flexibility demanded by customers and allowed under tariffs.
The state plans have in some cases discouraged LDCs from signing long-term contracts
for new capacity.
States have developed new plans that require utilities to encourage energy saving
measures and diversify their energy supplies to include renewable sources. This
has lowered the growth of residential gas demand. However, due to relatively
low prices of natural gas, demand for electric power generation has increased.
These factors have increased the risk that customers will reduce their contractual
commitments for pipeline capacity from traditional producing areas. Future utilization
of pipeline capacity will depend on these factors and others impacting both
U.S. and global demand for natural gas.
In Williams Partners’ midstream business, we face regional competition with varying competitive factors in each basin. Our gathering and processing business competes with other midstream companies, interstate and intrastate pipelines, producers and independent gatherers and processors. We primarily compete with five to ten companies across all basins in which we provide services. Numerous factors impact any given customer’s choice of a gathering or processing services provider, including rate, location, term, reliability, timeliness of services to be provided, pressure obligations and contract structure. We also compete in recruiting and retaining skilled employees.
Ethylene and propylene markets, and therefore Williams Partners’ olefins business, compete in a worldwide marketplace. Due to our NGL feedstock position at Geismar, we expect to benefit from the lower cost position in North America versus other crude based feedstocks worldwide. The majority of North American olefins producers have significant downstream petrochemical manufacturing for plastics and other products. As such, they buy or sell ethylene and propylene as required. We operate as a merchant seller of olefins with no downstream manufacturing, and therefore can be either a supplier or a competitor at any given time to these other companies. We compete on the basis of service, price and availability of the products we produce.
Our Canadian midstream facilities continue to be the only NGL/olefins fractionator in western Canada and the only processor of oil sands upgrader offgas. Our extraction of liquids from the upgrader offgas stream allows the upgraders to burn cleaner natural gas streams and reduce their overall air emissions. Our Canadian midstream business competes for the sale of its products with traditional Canadian midstream companies on the basis of operational expertise, price, service offerings and availability of the products we produce.
Publicly Traded Peers of Williams companies inc
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Williams companies inc | 84,500.50 | 12,204.00 |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | 678,400.22 | 368,757.00 |
| Chevron Corp | 407,361.69 | 215,261.00 |
| Union Pacific Corp | 162,815.40 | 25,490.00 |
| Conocophillips | 153,044.70 | 63,345.00 |
| The Southern Company | 92,890.80 | 30,174.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 3,274,274.22 | 1,718,100.99 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Williams companies inc .
Sources: Williams companies inc'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 Williams companies inc versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Williams Companies Inc'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 |
|---|---|
| Williams companies inc | Transmission And Gulf Of Mexico 44.10 % |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | Corporate and Unallocated 0.20 % |
| Chevron Corp | Reportable Segment, Aggregation before Other Operating 99.73 % |
| Union Pacific Corp | Reportable 98.85 % |
| Eog Resources Inc | United States of America 98.40 % |
| Kinder Morgan Inc | Natural Gas Pipelines 68.27 % |
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 Williams companies inc .
Williams Companies Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Williams companies inc | 84,501 | 2,038,417 | 541,841 |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | 678,400 | 6,357,879 | 575,414 |
| Chevron Corp | 407,362 | 5,001,533 | 487,116 |
| Union Pacific Corp | 162,815 | 870,352 | 250,282 |
| Conocophillips | 153,045 | 6,398,485 | 936,263 |
| The Southern Company | 92,891 | 1,012,550 | 142,248 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 3,189,774 | 2,257,454 | 242,756 |
Sign in to see all peers for Williams companies inc .
Williams Companies Inc'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 |
|---|---|
| Sea Limited | Southeast Asia excluding Singapore 62.69 % |
| Occidental Petroleum Corporation | Non-US 20.75 % |
| Sharkninja Inc | North America 64.87 % |
| Sm Energy Co | Permian Basin 49.29 % |
| Ageagle Aerial Systems Inc | EMEA 37.61 % |
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.
Sign in to see all peers for Williams companies inc .
Williams Companies Inc's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 48 companies in Williams Companies Inc's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Williams Companies Inc ranks #2 of 48 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 8.57 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 599, indicating a unconcentrated 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 | Enbridge Inc | 102,251 | 10.44 % |
| 2 | Williams companies inc | 83,937 | 8.57 % |
| 3 | Enterprise Products Partners L p | 80,470 | 8.21 % |
| 4 | Energy Transfer Lp | 69,678 | 7.11 % |
| 5 | Kinder Morgan Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Tc Energy Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Targa Resources Corp | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Cheniere Energy Partners L p | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Mplx Lp | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Cheniere Energy Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Williams Companies Inc'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.
Williams Companies Inc'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 | Enbridge Inc | 102,251 | -5.81 % |
| 2 | Williams companies inc | 83,937 | 8.23 % |
| 3 | Enterprise Products Partners L p | 80,470 | 16.80 % |
| 4 | Energy Transfer Lp | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 5 | Kinder Morgan Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 6 | Tc Energy Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 7 | Targa Resources Corp | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Williams Companies Inc'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.
Williams Companies Inc's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Natural Gas Utilities industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (81 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | - | 58.03 % (avg) | - |
| Operating Margin | 38.18 % | industry median | +21.4 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 50.80 % | 31.10 % (avg) | +19.7 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 54.35 % | 20.19 % (avg) | +34.2 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.
Williams Companies Inc's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Natural Gas Utilities industry average (81 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 | 29.5x | 21.6x | +7.9x |
| EV / EBITDA | 19.4x | 11.4x | +8.0x |
| P/B | 6.0x | 2.6x | +3.5x |
| Return on Equity | 21.49 % | industry aggregate | -7.65 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 7.21 % | 6.01 % (avg) | 1.20 % |
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.
Williams Companies Inc'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 | 8.16 % | -5.58 % | -5.88 % | 39.46 % | 1.66 % | -0.53 % | -3.70 % | 13.78 % |
| Operating Margin | 8.84 % | 23.42 % | 28.53 % | 23.25 % | 27.52 % | 39.53 % | 31.79 % | 35.11 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 1.20 % | 3.11 % | 3.66 % | 4.24 % | 5.44 % | 7.98 % | 5.70 % | 7.05 % |
| P/E | - | 32.6x | 127.8x | 25.5x | 19.7x | 13.5x | 30.7x | 28.4x |
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.
Williams Companies Inc's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Williams Companies Inc's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Williams Companies Inc 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.
Williams Companies Inc's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Williams Companies Inc'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.
Williams Companies Inc falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.82x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 6.7% (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.
Williams Companies Inc'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 599 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | High (capital intensive) | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 54.35 % vs industry average 20.19 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Williams Companies Inc's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Williams Companies Inc'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.
Williams Companies Inc'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.
Williams Companies Inc 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.
Williams Companies Inc'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 21.4 points above the industry median.
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 7.7 points below the industry aggregate.
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- High capital intensity requires continuous reinvestment just to keep pace with the industry.
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.
Williams Companies Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Williams companies inc | - | 0.54 | 1.94 |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | 0.13 | 1.11 | 0.17 |
| Chevron Corp | 0.01 | 1.16 | 0.21 |
| Union Pacific Corp | 0.22 | 0.89 | 1.64 |
| Conocophillips | 0.49 | 1.36 | 0.45 |
| The Southern Company | 0.11 | 0.70 | 1.86 |
Sign in to see all peers for Williams companies inc .
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.
Williams Companies Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Williams companies inc | Q2 2026 | +9.8 % | +50.3 % |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | Q2 2026 | +42.3 % | +97.5 % |
| Chevron Corp | Q2 2026 | +56.3 % | +385.6 % |
| Union Pacific Corp | Q2 2026 | +12.8 % | +6.2 % |
| Conocophillips | Q2 2026 | +36.8 % | +98.8 % |
| The Southern Company | Q1 2026 | +8.0 % | +0.3 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +21.0 % | +80.6 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Williams companies inc .
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Williams Companies Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Williams companies inc | Q2 2026 | - | +88.7 % |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | Q2 2026 | - | +3.9 % |
| Chevron Corp | Q2 2026 | +36.3 % | +22.3 % |
| Union Pacific Corp | Q2 2026 | +62.8 % | -6.7 % |
| Conocophillips | Q2 2026 | +32.0 % | - |
| The Southern Company | Q1 2026 | +2.1 % | +20.8 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Williams companies inc .
Williams Companies Inc's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Williams companies inc | 5.53% | 6.55% | 21.49% |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | 7.29% | 7.92% | 12.57% |
| Chevron Corp | 6.40% | 6.49% | 10.85% |
| Union Pacific Corp | 10.50% | 11.20% | 38.65% |
| Conocophillips | 7.55% | 8.36% | 14.30% |
| The Southern Company | 2.76% | 2.74% | 10.98% |
Sign in to see all peers for Williams companies inc .
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).
Williams Companies Inc's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Williams companies inc | 27.48 | 6.92 |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | 20.97 | 1.84 |
| Chevron Corp | 19.59 | 1.89 |
| Union Pacific Corp | 22.21 | 6.39 |
| Conocophillips | 16.72 | 2.42 |
| The Southern Company | 21.06 | 3.08 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 17.54 | 1.91 |
Sign in to see all peers for Williams companies inc .
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.