Layne Christensen Co's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Layne Christensen Co (LAYN) 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: Layne Christensen Co vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 479M vs -M combined for tracked competitors (100.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is holding steady (+0.8% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Peer revenue share: Layne Christensen Co accounted for 100.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 100.0% a year earlier.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
LAYN Sales vs. its Competitors, Q1 2016
Layne Christensen Co generated 100.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 100.00 % a year earlier.
For context: the Construction Services industry grew revenue 20.2% year over year, combined, vs -6.6% for Layne Christensen Co. Layne Christensen Co's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.10% to 0.08%, a loss of 0.02 percentage points.
Layne Christensen 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Layne Christensen Co | No | No | No | No |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 62.50 % (5 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 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.