Cubic's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Cubic (CUB) 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: Cubic vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 1,488M vs 0M combined for its competitors (100.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-7.7% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs decelerating (-94.6%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Cubic generated 6.8% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2021, vs 154.5% for its competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its -5.6% net margin compares with -112,964.3% for the peer group.
- Peer revenue share: Cubic 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 $0.18M compares with $0.10M for the peer group (1.8x).
- Structure: Cubic operates in the following segments: Transportation Systems, Mission and Performance Solutions.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
CUB Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2021
Cubic reported revenue growth of 6.82 % year on year in Q2 2021, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 154.52 %.
With a net margin of -5.60 %, Cubic achieved higher profitability than its competitors (-112,964.34 %).
Cubic generated 100.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 100.00 % a year earlier.
API endpoints for this dataset
Cubic vs. its Competitors, Q2 2021
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 Cubic 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 Cubic and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Cubic Corp | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (11) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (3) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Cubic's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Scientific & Technical Instruments industry grew revenue 14.1% year over year, combined, vs 6.8% for Cubic. Cubic's share of combined industry revenue moved from 1.44% to 1.35%, a loss of 0.09 percentage points.
Cubic's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cubic Corp | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| Competitors combined (1) | - | |||
| High-Confidence Competitors (11) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 75.00 % (6 of 8) | 62.50 % (5 of 8) | 25.00 % (2 of 8) | 12.50 % (1 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.
CUB Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
CUB Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
CUB Stock Performance relative to Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors
Cubic's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
In the defense market, we continue to focus on expanding our domestic and international footprint in the global military simulation and training market as well as enabling the convergence and integration of live, virtual and constructive training technologies. U.S. federal budgetary decisions and constraints have put downward pressure on growth in the defense industry and has affected our business in 2015. However, we believe that much of our business is well positioned in areas that the DoD has indicated are areas of focus for future defense spending to help the DoD meet its critical future capability requirements for protecting U.S. security and the security of our allies in the years to come.
However, we believe that changes in training doctrine and the use of new types of training that are cost effective will be essential for the military to fulfill its mission. Globally, we are focused on the emerging economies within the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East, which are expected to be strong markets for simulation and training products and services with projected growth rates in excess of the overall market. In addition, new platforms and the significant increase in unmanned vehicles and other advanced weapon systems could generate significant demand for operator training on these new platforms.
Our secure communications products address the large and broadly defined Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (C4ISR) market, with an estimated addressable market of approximately $2 billion annually. We believe that our products and technologies address mission critical requirements such as: integrated communications suites for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), ships and the dismounted soldier; battlefield awareness; and secure and encrypted communications. We believe that these technologies will continue to experience strong demand as the U.S. military maintains a smaller, more agile force structure.
Publicly Traded Peers of Cubic Corp
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Cubic Corp |
344.33 | 1,488.12 |
 Basanite Inc |
6,579.35 | 0.31 |
| SUBTOTAL | 6,923.67 | 1,488.42 |
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Cubic Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Cubic's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Cubic reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Virtra Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Leonardo Drs Inc | Company report | 85% |
| IBM | Company report | 85% |
| Kimley-Horn | Company report | 85% |
| Roper Technologies | Company report | 85% |
| Trapeze | Company report | 85% |
| Flowbird | Company report | 85% |
| Intelight | Company report | 85% |
| McCain | Company report | 85% |
| Siemens | Company report | 85% |
| Conduent | Company report | 85% |
| Indra | Company report | 85% |
| L3Harris | Company report | 85% |
| Saab Training Systems | Company report | 85% |
| Vix | Company report | 85% |
| Accenture | Company report | 85% |
| General Dynamics | Company report | 85% |
| Kapsch | Company report | 85% |
| Northrop Grumman | Company report | 85% |
| Thales | Company report | 85% |
| Econolite | Company report | 85% |
| Init | Company report | 85% |
| Lockheed Martin | Company report | 85% |
| Scheidt & Bachmann | Company report | 85% |
| Boeing | Company report | 85% |
| Basanite Inc | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Cubic's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Cubic'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 |
|---|---|
| Cubic Corp | Transportation Systems 63.31 % |
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).
Cubic'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cubic Corp | 344 | 179,291 | 4,738 |
| Basanite Inc | 6,579 | 101,778 | -672,598 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 6,579 | 101,778 | -672,598 |
Cubic'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 |
|---|---|
| Cubic Corp | US 60.39 % |
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.
Cubic's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 20 companies in Cubic's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Cubic ranks #0 of 20 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.00 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 3,171, indicating a highly concentrated market structure (see Methodology: Market Structure & Concentration).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc | 260,828 | 43.13 % |
| 2 | Kla Corporation | 208,489 | 34.47 % |
| 3 | Rockwell Automation Inc | 45,264 | 7.48 % |
| 4 | Coherent Corp | 44,488 | 7.36 % |
| 5 | Trimble Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Nova Ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Onto Innovation Inc | 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% |
| 0 | Cubic Corp | 344 | 0.00 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Cubic's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-06-04.
Cubic'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 (36 companies). See the full Scientific & Technical Instruments industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 43.52 % | 38.95 % (avg) | +4.6 pp |
| Operating Margin | 4.95 % | industry median | -4.9 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 15.33 % | 4.93 % (avg) | +10.4 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 3.30 % | 6.18 % (avg) | -2.9 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.
Cubic's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Scientific & Technical Instruments industry average (36 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 Scientific & Technical Instruments industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | 272.8x | 60.0x | +212.9x |
| EV / EBITDA | 11.8x | 24.4x | -12.6x |
| P/B | 2.2x | 4.7x | -2.5x |
| Return on Equity | 4.06 % | industry aggregate | -22.45 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 2.64 % | -0.81 % (avg) | 3.45 % |
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.
Cubic's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in company reports.| Metric | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | -0.15 % | -30.65 % | 1.18 % | 3.94 % | 0.63 % | 13.32 % | 20.66 % | -3.54 % |
| Operating Margin | 1.69 % | 6.23 % | 4.22 % | 0.76 % | 0.98 % | 2.84 % | 5.28 % | 4.73 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 2.22 % | 5.20 % | 3.84 % | 0.66 % | 0.89 % | 1.99 % | 3.51 % | 2.56 % |
| P/E | - | - | 98.6x | 290.0x | - | 109.0x | 57.9x | 434.3x |
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.
Cubic's Strategic Group Map
Cubic 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.
Cubic's trailing-12-month revenue growth of -1.1% and operating margin of 5.0% compares with an average of 2.2% growth and 5.1% margin across its 8 closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC -- Cubic sits below 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.
Cubic'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 3,171 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | Lower than typical for the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 3.30 % vs industry average 6.18 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Cubic's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Cubic's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Cubic 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.
Cubic'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
- Return on equity 22.5 points below the industry aggregate.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-7.7% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
- Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below, the standard financial-distress signal.
Opportunities
- A meaningful share of competitors (100.00 %) show financial-distress signals, a possible opening to gain share.
Threats
- Industry dominated by Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc , holding 43.13 % of industry market cap.
- Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-94.6% annualized).
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Cubic'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cubic Corp | 0.25 | 1.28 | 0.71 |
| Basanite Inc | 0.01 | 0.01 | - |
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.
Cubic'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cubic Corp | Q1 2021 | +6.8 % | - |
| Basanite Inc | Q3 2025 | -97.6 % | - |
| PEERS TOTAL | +6.8 % | - |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Cubic'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cubic Corp | Q1 2021 | - | +308.8 % |
| Basanite Inc | Q3 2025 | +246.5 % | - |
Cubic's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cubic Corp | 1.69% | 2.15% | 4.06% |
| Basanite 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).
Cubic's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Cubic Corp | 43.54 | 0.23 |
| Basanite Inc | 4,821.59 | 21,548.11 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 185.57 | 4.65 |
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.