Chubb Limited's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Chubb Limited (ACE) 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: Chubb Limited vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 19,678M vs -M combined for tracked competitors (100.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+732.7% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Peer revenue share: Chubb Limited accounted for 100.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
ACE Sales vs. its Competitors, 2021
Chubb Limited generated 100.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group.
Chubb Limited'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chubb Limited | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| High-Confidence Competitors (8) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 62.50 % (5 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 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.
ACE Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
ACE Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
ACE Stock Performance relative to Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors
Chubb Limited's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Columbus Mckinnon Corp | Named by the company | 85% |
| Bowhead Specialty Holdings Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| White Mountains Insurance Group ltd | Named by the company | 85% |
| Arch Capital Group Ltd | Named by the company | 85% |
| Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited | Named by the company | 85% |
| Chubb Limited | Named by the company | 85% |
| Boston Omaha Corp | Named by the company | 85% |
| Renaissancere Holdings Ltd | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Chubb Limited'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.