Triple S Management's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Triple S Management (GTS) 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: Triple S Management vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 4,115M vs 2,447,683M combined for tracked competitors (0.2% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+2.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs decelerating (-28.1%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Triple S Management generated 9.7% revenue growth year over year in Q3 2021, vs 10.7% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 0.8% net margin compares with 7.8% for the peer group.
- Peer revenue share: Triple S Management accounted for 0.2% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 0.2% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $1.26M compares with $1.43M 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).
GTS Sales vs. its Competitors, Q3 2021
Triple S Management reported revenue growth of 9.72 % year on year in Q3 2021, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 10.65 %.
With a net margin of 0.78 %, Triple S Management reported lower profitability than its competitors (7.82 %).
Triple S Management generated 0.24 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 0.24 % a year earlier.
Triple S Management vs. its Competitors, Q3 2021
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 Triple S Management and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Triple s Management Corporation | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (7) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Triple S Management's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Accident & Health Insurance industry grew revenue 7.3% year over year, combined, vs 9.7% for Triple S Management. Triple S Management's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.27% to 0.28%, a gain of 0.01 percentage points.
Triple S Management'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Triple s Management Corporation | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Competitors combined (89) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 25.00 % (2 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 of 7) |
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.
GTS Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
GTS 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 | Centene Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | United Fire Group Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Universal Insurance Holdings Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Humana Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Safety Insurance Group Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Triple S Management's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Triple S Management's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Managed Care
The managed care industry is highly competitive, both nationally and in Puerto Rico. Competition continues to be intense due to aggressive marketing, business consolidations, a proliferation of new products and increased quality awareness and price sensitivity among customers. Industry participants compete for customers based on the ability to provide a total value proposition which we believe includes quality of service and flexibility of benefit designs, access to and quality of provider networks, brand recognition and reputation, price and financial stability.
We believe that our competitive strengths, including our leading presence in Puerto Rico, our BCBS license, the size and quality of our provider network, the broad range of our product offerings, our strong complementary businesses and our experienced management team, position us well to satisfy these competitive requirements.
Competitors in the managed care segment include national and local managed care plans. We had approximately 1,094,000 members enrolled in our managed care segment. Our market share in terms of premiums written in Puerto Rico was estimated at approximately 25% for the nine-month. We offer a variety of managed care products, and are the leader by market share in almost every sector, as measured by the share of premiums written.
Life Insurance
We are one of the leading providers of life insurance products in Puerto Rico. In 2014, we were the second largest life insurance company in Puerto Rico, as measured by direct premiums, with a market share of approximately 10%. We are the only life insurance company that distributes our products through home service. However, we face competition in each of our product lines. In the life insurance sector, excluding annuities, we were the largest company with a market share of approximately 20%. In the cancer sector, we were the largest company with a market share of approximately 20%.
Property & Casualty Insurance
The property and casualty insurance market in Puerto Rico is extremely competitive. In addition, soft market conditions have prevailed in Puerto Rico. In the local market, such conditions mostly affected commercial risks, precluding rate increases and even provoking lower premiums on both renewals and new business. Property and casualty insurance companies tend to compete for the same accounts through price, policy terms and quality of services. We compete by reasonably pricing our products and providing efficient services to producers, agents and clients.
Publicly Traded Peers of Triple s Management Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Triple s Management Corporation | 849.75 | 4,115.22 |
| Unitedhealth Group Incorporated | 342,313.98 | 450,129.00 |
| Futu Holdings Ltd | 126,960.16 | 2,935.37 |
| Progressive Corp | 122,372.37 | 91,055.00 |
| Elevance Health Inc | 85,981.16 | 201,113.00 |
| Travelers Companies inc | 77,570.98 | 48,979.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 1,703,694.54 | 2,461,532.73 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Triple s Management Corporation.
Sources: Triple s Management Corporation'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 Triple s Management Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Triple S Management'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 |
|---|---|
| Triple s Management Corporation | All Other Segments 0.59 % |
| Unitedhealth Group Incorporated | UnitedHealthcare 76.78 % |
| Elevance Health Inc | Reportable 100.00 % |
| Travelers Companies inc | Business Insurance 45.68 % |
| The Cigna Group | Evernorth 85.32 % |
| Metlife Inc | Group Benefits 36.13 % |
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 Triple s Management Corporation.
Triple S Management'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Triple s Management Corporation | 850 | 1,263,500 | 24,922 |
| Unitedhealth Group Incorporated | 342,314 | 1,154,177 | 38,236 |
| Futu Holdings Ltd | 126,960 | 14,531,554 | 7,188,465 |
| Progressive Corp | 122,372 | 1,821,100 | 233,900 |
| Elevance Health Inc | 85,981 | 2,071,195 | 51,040 |
| Travelers Companies inc | 77,571 | 1,440,559 | 243,765 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 1,702,845 | 1,426,252 | 124,362 |
Sign in to see all peers for Triple s Management Corporation.
Triple S Management'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 |
|---|---|
| Aon Plc | Europe, Middle East, and Africa, Other Than United Kingdom and Ireland 16.91 % |
| Brown and Brown Inc | US 86.46 % |
| Ncr Atleos Corporation | United States 47.84 % |
| Leaf Group Ltd | US 87.97 % |
| Citizens Inc | All Countries 66.88 % |
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.
Triple S Management's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Accident & Health Insurance industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (16 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 17.60 % | 30.59 % (avg) | -13.0 pp |
| Operating Margin | 17.60 % | industry median | +13.0 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 2.95 % | 6.78 % (avg) | -3.8 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 0.54 % | 0.39 % (avg) | +0.1 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.
Triple S Management's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Accident & Health Insurance industry average (16 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 | 9.3x | 19.7x | -10.4x |
| EV / EBITDA | -21.9x | 15.8x | -37.7x |
| P/B | 0.8x | 2.4x | -1.6x |
| Return on Equity | 8.19 % | industry aggregate | -7.89 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 24.56 % | 6.59 % (avg) | 17.97 % |
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.
Triple S Management's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2013 | 2014 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | - | -2.45 % | 10.30 % | -3.88 % | 3.24 % | 12.67 % | 9.68 % |
| Operating Margin | 23.77 % | 24.68 % | 17.17 % | 20.12 % | 15.64 % | 21.01 % | 20.41 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 25.42 % | 24.02 % | 21.00 % | 23.50 % | 19.39 % | 27.81 % | 27.25 % |
| P/E | - | - | 30.7x | 9.1x | - | 4.6x | 7.8x |
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.
Triple S Management's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Triple S Management's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Triple S Management 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.
Triple S Management'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 |
|---|---|---|
| Barriers to Entry | High (capital intensive) | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 0.54 % vs industry average 0.39 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Triple S Management's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Triple S Management'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.
Triple S Management'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.
Triple S Management falls in the Low attractiveness / Medium strength cell: Harvest.
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.
Triple S Management'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 13.0 points above the industry median.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+2.0% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 7.9 points below the industry aggregate.
Opportunities
- Industry revenue growing at a healthy 12.3% median pace.
- Trades at a lower P/E than the industry average (9.3x vs 19.7x) despite a higher return on invested capital -- a possible re-rating opportunity.
Threats
- Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-28.1% annualized).
- 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.
Triple S Management'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Triple s Management Corporation | 0.11 | 3.29 | 0.08 |
| Unitedhealth Group Incorporated | 0.24 | 0.81 | 0.75 |
| Futu Holdings Ltd | 0.06 | 1.19 | 0.30 |
| Progressive Corp | 0.06 | 1.06 | 0.23 |
| Elevance Health Inc | 0.22 | 1.50 | 0.72 |
| Travelers Companies inc | 0.01 | 1.08 | 0.28 |
Sign in to see all peers for Triple s Management Corporation.
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.
Triple S Management'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Triple s Management Corporation | Q3 2021 | +9.7 % | -65.4 % |
| Unitedhealth Group Incorporated | Q2 2026 | +0.4 % | +58.7 % |
| Futu Holdings Ltd | Q4 2025 | +67.8 % | +107.6 % |
| Progressive Corp | Q2 2026 | +7.3 % | +4.3 % |
| Elevance Health Inc | Q2 2026 | +1.4 % | -16.1 % |
| Travelers Companies inc | Q2 2026 | +0.3 % | +45.3 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +7.1 % | +59.5 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Triple s Management Corporation.
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Triple S Management'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Triple s Management Corporation | Q3 2021 | -30.6 % | -13.2 % |
| Unitedhealth Group Incorporated | Q2 2026 | +2.7 % | -9.8 % |
| Futu Holdings Ltd | Q4 2025 | +29.0 % | -67.4 % |
| Progressive Corp | Q2 2026 | +1,027.3 % | +35.3 % |
| Elevance Health Inc | Q2 2026 | +3.8 % | +7.5 % |
| Travelers Companies inc | Q2 2026 | -0.9 % | - |
Sign in to see all peers for Triple s Management Corporation.
Triple S Management's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Triple s Management Corporation | 2.56% | 4.15% | 8.19% |
| Unitedhealth Group Incorporated | 4.78% | 7.51% | 14.55% |
| Futu Holdings Ltd | 4.95% | 19.69% | 28.25% |
| Progressive Corp | 9.51% | 11.22% | 35.40% |
| Elevance Health Inc | 3.99% | 6.09% | 11.19% |
| Travelers Companies inc | 5.78% | 10.84% | 25.58% |
Sign in to see all peers for Triple s Management Corporation.
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).
Triple S Management's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Triple s Management Corporation | 10.37 | 0.21 |
| Unitedhealth Group Incorporated | 24.31 | 0.76 |
| Futu Holdings Ltd | 87.03 | 43.25 |
| Progressive Corp | 10.51 | 1.34 |
| Elevance Health Inc | 17.56 | 0.43 |
| Travelers Companies inc | 9.72 | 1.58 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 7.95 | 0.69 |
Sign in to see all peers for Triple s Management Corporation.
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.