Loews's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Loews (L) 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: Loews vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 18,694M vs 2,643,337M combined for tracked competitors (0.7% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is holding steady (+1.3% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+10.3%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Loews generated 3.9% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 20.1% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 10.0% net margin compares with 15.7% for the peer group.
- Scale: Loews ranks #12 of 65 companies by market capitalization in the Property & Casualty Insurance industry, holding 1.2% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Loews accounted for 0.7% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 0.7% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $1.43M compares with $0.99M for the peer group (1.4x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
L Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Loews reported revenue growth of 3.93 % year on year in Q2 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 20.06 %.
With a net margin of 9.95 %, Loews reported lower profitability than its competitors (15.69 %).
Loews generated 0.65 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 0.74 % a year earlier.
Loews 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 Loews and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Loews Corp | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (9) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Loews's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Property & Casualty Insurance industry grew revenue 5.6% year over year, combined, vs 3.9% for Loews. Loews's share of combined industry revenue moved from 1.76% to 1.73%, a loss of 0.03 percentage points.
Loews'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loews Corp | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Competitors combined (183) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) |
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.
L Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
L 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 | Calumet Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Zion Oil and Gas Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Gran Tierra Energy Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Par Pacific Holdings Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Matson inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Loews's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Loews's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
The property and casualty insurance industry is highly competitive both as
to rate and service. CNA competes with a large number of stock and mutual insurance
companies and other entities for both distributors and customers. Insurers compete
on the basis of factors including products, price, services, ratings and financial
strength. CNA must continuously allocate resources to refine and improve its
insurance products and services.
There are approximately 2,800 individual companies that sell property and casualty
insurance in the United States. Based on 2012 statutory net written premiums,
CNA is the eighth largest commercial insurance writer and the 13th largest property
and casualty insurance organization in the United States.
Despite consolidation in previous years, the offshore contract drilling industry
remains highly competitive with numerous industry participants, none of which
at the present time has a dominant market share. The industry may also experience
additional consolidation in the future, which could create other large competitors.
Some of Diamond Offshore’s competitors may have greater financial or other
resources than Diamond Offshore. Diamond Offshore competes with offshore drilling
contractors that together have approximately 600 mobile rigs available worldwide.
The offshore contract drilling industry is influenced by a number of factors,
including global economies and demand for oil and natural gas, current and anticipated
prices of oil and natural gas, expenditures by oil and gas companies for exploration
and development of oil and natural gas and the availability of drilling rigs.
Drilling contracts are traditionally awarded on a competitive bid basis. Price
is typically the primary factor in determining which qualified contractor is
awarded a job. Customers may also consider rig availability and location, a
drilling contractor’s operational and safety performance record, and condition
and suitability of equipment. Diamond Offshore believes it competes favorably
with respect to these factors.
Diamond Offshore competes on a worldwide basis, but competition may vary significantly by region at any particular time. Competition for offshore rigs generally takes place on a global basis, as these rigs are highly mobile and may be moved, at a cost that may be substantial, from one region to another. It is characteristic of the offshore contract drilling industry to move rigs from areas of low utilization and dayrates to areas of greater activity and relatively higher dayrates. Significant new rig construction and upgrades of existing drilling units could also intensify price competition.
Boardwalk Pipeline competes with numerous other pipelines that provide transportation,
storage and other services at many locations along its pipeline systems. Boardwalk
Pipeline also competes with pipelines that are attached to new natural gas supply
sources that are being developed closer to some of its traditional natural gas
market areas. In addition, regulators’ continuing efforts to increase
competition in the natural gas industry have increased the natural gas transportation
options of Boardwalk Pipeline’s traditional customers. As a result of
regulators’ policies, capacity segmentation and capacity release have
created an active secondary market which increasingly competes with Boardwalk
Pipeline’s natural gas pipeline services. Further, natural gas competes
with other forms of energy available to Boardwalk Pipeline’s customers,
including electricity, coal, fuel oils and alternative fuel sources.
The principal elements of competition among pipelines are available capacity, rates, terms of service, access to gas supplies, flexibility and reliability of service. In many cases, the elements of competition, in particular flexibility, terms of service and reliability, are key differentiating factors between competitors. This is especially the case with capacity being sold on a longer term basis. Boardwalk Pipeline is focused on finding opportunities to enhance its competitive profile in these areas by increasing the flexibility of its pipeline systems to meet the demands of customers, such as power generators and industrial users, and is continually reviewing its services and terms of service to offer customers enhanced service options.
HighMount competes with other oil and gas companies in all aspects of its business, including acquisition of producing properties and leases and obtaining goods, services and labor, including drilling rigs and well completion services. HighMount also competes in the marketing of produced natural gas and oil. Some of HighMount’s competitors have substantially larger financial and other resources than HighMount. Factors that affect HighMount’s ability to acquire producing properties include available funds, available information about the property and standards established by HighMount for minimum projected return on investment. Natural gas and oil also compete with alternative fuel sources, including heating oil and coal.
Competition from other hotels and lodging facilities is vigorous in all areas in which Loews Hotels operates. The demand for hotel rooms in many areas is seasonal and dependent on general and local economic conditions. Loews Hotels properties also compete with facilities offering similar services in locations other than those in which its hotels are located. Competition among luxury hotels is based primarily on location and service. Competition among resort and commercial hotels is based on price as well as location and service. Because of the competitive nature of the industry, hotels must continually make expenditures for updating, refurnishing and repairs and maintenance, in order to prevent competitive obsolescence.
Publicly Traded Peers of Loews Corp
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Loews Corp | 21,574.57 | 18,694.00 |
| 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 |
| Progressive Corp | 122,372.37 | 91,055.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 4,187,268.16 | 3,050,070.51 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Loews Corp.
Sources: Loews 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 Loews Corp versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Loews's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Moody s Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Power Reit | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Loews'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.
Loews'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 |
|---|---|
| Loews Corp | CNA Financial Corporation 80.72 % |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | Corporate and Unallocated 0.20 % |
| Chevron Corp | Reportable Segment, Aggregation before Other Operating 99.73 % |
| Union Pacific Corp | Reportable 98.85 % |
| Marriott International Inc | U.S. and Canada 74.47 % |
| Williams companies inc | Transmission And Gulf Of Mexico 44.10 % |
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).
Loews'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loews Corp | 21,575 | 1,427,023 | 136,565 |
| 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 |
| Progressive Corp | 122,372 | 1,821,100 | 233,900 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 4,165,694 | 987,360 | 117,341 |
Loews'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 |
|---|---|
| Moody s Corporation | United States 55.74 % |
| Slb Limited | Middle East 28.67 % |
| Sea Limited | Southeast Asia excluding Singapore 62.69 % |
| Aon Plc | Europe, Middle East, and Africa, Other Than United Kingdom and Ireland 16.91 % |
| Occidental Petroleum Corporation | Non-US 20.75 % |
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.
Loews's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 65 companies in Loews's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Loews ranks #12 of 65 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 1.16 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 3,550, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Chubb Limited | 130,758 | 7.04 % |
| 3 | Progressive Corp | 122,372 | 6.59 % |
| 4 | Travelers Companies inc | 77,571 | 4.18 % |
| 5 | Allstate Corp | 58,958 | 3.17 % |
| 6 | American International Group Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | The Hartford Insurance Group Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Arch Capital Group Ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | W R Berkley Corp | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Cincinnati Financial Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 11 | Markel Group Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 12 | Loews Corp | 21,575 | 1.16 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Loews'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.
Loews'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | The Hartford Insurance Group Inc | 34,825 | -4.46 % |
| 8 | Arch Capital Group Ltd | 33,101 | 5.89 % |
| 9 | W R Berkley Corp | 26,509 | -8.14 % |
| 10 | Cincinnati Financial Corporation | 25,211 | 7.02 % |
| 11 | Markel Group Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 12 | Loews Corp | 21,575 | 6.17 % |
| 13 | Everest Group Ltd | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 14 | Renaissancere Holdings Ltd | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 15 | Assurant Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 16 | Cna Financial Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 17 | American Financial Group Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Loews'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.
Loews's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Property & Casualty Insurance industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (75 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 55.75 % | 49.36 % (avg) | +6.4 pp |
| Operating Margin | - | industry median | - |
| EBITDA Margin | 22.52 % | 13.82 % (avg) | +8.7 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 4.33 % | 0.95 % (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.
Loews's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Property & Casualty Insurance industry average (75 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 | 13.6x | 13.2x | +0.3x |
| EV / EBITDA | 6.1x | 6.2x | -0.1x |
| P/B | 1.2x | 1.9x | -0.8x |
| Return on Equity | 9.12 % | industry aggregate | -5.57 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | - | 5.86 % (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.
Loews'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 | 2.03 % | 6.15 % | -15.73 % | 16.87 % | -5.75 % | 13.22 % | 10.12 % | 5.39 % |
| Operating Margin | 44.33 % | 44.61 % | 32.93 % | 44.23 % | 36.14 % | 37.95 % | 38.86 % | 38.56 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 6.59 % | 7.02 % | 4.82 % | 7.51 % | 5.80 % | 6.43 % | 6.78 % | 8.28 % |
| P/E | 23.1x | 16.2x | - | 8.1x | 13.8x | 11.0x | 13.1x | 13.1x |
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.
Loews's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Loews'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.
Loews falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.16x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 5.9% (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.
Loews'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 3,550 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | High (capital intensive) | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 4.33 % vs industry average 0.95 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Loews's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Loews'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.
Loews'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.
Loews 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.
Loews'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 5.6 points below the industry aggregate.
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.16x).
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.
Loews'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loews Corp | 0.05 | 0.89 | 0.47 |
| 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 |
| Progressive Corp | 0.06 | 1.06 | 0.23 |
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.
Loews'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loews Corp | Q2 2026 | +3.9 % | +13.2 % |
| 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 % |
| Progressive Corp | Q2 2026 | +7.3 % | +4.3 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +14.8 % | +71.9 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Loews'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loews Corp | Q2 2026 | +2.6 % | +92.5 % |
| 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 % | - |
| Progressive Corp | Q2 2026 | +1,027.3 % | +35.3 % |
Loews's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loews Corp | 2.07% | 2.73% | 9.12% |
| 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% |
| Progressive Corp | 9.51% | 11.22% | 35.40% |
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).
Loews's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Loews Corp | 12.89 | 1.15 |
| 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 |
| Progressive Corp | 10.51 | 1.34 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 11.57 | 1.37 |
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.