Kirby's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Kirby (KEX) 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: Kirby vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 3,489M vs 15,499M combined for tracked competitors (18.4% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+5.7% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+3.6%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Kirby generated 7.8% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 11.6% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 9.7% net margin compares with 22.1% for the peer group.
- Scale: Kirby ranks #4 of 20 companies by market capitalization in the Cruise and Shipping industry, holding 3.9% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Kirby accounted for 18.7% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 19.2% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.67M compares with $0.51M for the peer group (1.3x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
KEX Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Kirby reported revenue growth of 7.83 % year on year in Q2 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 11.60 %.
With a net margin of 9.74 %, Kirby reported lower profitability than its competitors (22.07 %).
Kirby generated 18.68 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 19.21 % a year earlier.
Kirby 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 Kirby and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Kirby Corporation | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (5) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (6) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Kirby's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Cruise and Shipping industry grew revenue 9.4% year over year, combined, vs 7.8% for Kirby. Kirby's share of combined industry revenue moved from 1.63% to 1.61%, a loss of 0.02 percentage points.
Kirby'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kirby Corporation | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Competitors combined (4) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (6) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (7) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 100.00 % (8 of 8) | 75.00 % (6 of 8) | 75.00 % (6 of 8) | 14.30 % (1 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.
KEX Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
KEX Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
KEX Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
KEX 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 | Matson inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Arcosa Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Tidewater Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Ametek Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Kirby's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Kirby's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
In the inland markets, the Company’s direct competitors are primarily noncaptive inland tank barge operators. “Captive” fleets are owned by major oil and petrochemical companies which occasionally compete in the inland tank barge market, but primarily transport cargoes for their own account. The Company is the largest inland tank barge carrier, both in terms of number of barges and total fleet barrel capacity.
In the coastal markets, the Company’s direct competitors are the operators of United States tank barges in the 195,000 barrels or less category. Coastal tank barges in the 195,000 barrels or less category have the ability to enter the large majority of coastal ports. Ocean-going tank barges and United States refined petroleum products tankers, in the 300,000 barrels plus category, including the captive fleets of major oil companies, primarily move large volumes of refined petroleum products and crude oil from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast. There are approximately 35 such vessels and, because of their size, their access to ports is limited by terminal size and draft restrictions.
While the Company competes primarily with other tank barge companies, it also competes with companies who operate refined product and petrochemical pipelines, railroad tank cars and tractor-trailer tank trucks. As noted above, the Company believes that both inland and coastal marine transportation of bulk liquid products enjoys a substantial cost advantage over railroad and truck transportation. The Company believes that refined product and crude oil pipelines, although often a less expensive form of transportation than inland and coastal tank barges, are not as adaptable to diverse products and are generally limited to fixed point-to-point distribution of commodities in high volumes over extended periods of time.
The Company’s primary competitors are independent diesel engine services companies and other factory-authorized distributors, authorized service centers and authorized marine dealers. Certain operators of diesel powered marine equipment also elect to maintain in-house service capabilities. While price is a major determinant in the competitive process, reputation, consistent quality, expeditious service, experienced personnel, access to parts inventories and market presence are also significant factors. A substantial portion of the Company’s business is obtained by competitive bids. However, the Company has entered into preferential service agreements with certain large operators of diesel powered marine equipment, providing such operators with one source of support and service for all of their requirements at pre-negotiated prices.
The Company is one of a limited number of authorized resellers of EMD, Caterpillar,
Cummins, Detroit Diesel and John Deere parts. The Company is also the only marine
distributor for Falk reduction gears throughout the United States.
The Company’s primary competitors are other independent diesel service companies and manufacturers. While price is a major determinant in the competitive process, reputation, consistent quality, expeditious service, experienced personnel, access to parts inventories and market presence are also significant factors. A substantial portion of the Company’s business is obtained by competitive bids. However, the Company has entered into preferential service agreements with certain large operators of diesel powered generation equipment, providing such operators with one source of support and service for all of their requirements at pre-negotiated prices.
As noted under Power Generation Operations above, the Company is the exclusive worldwide distributor of EMD, Cameron, Woodward, Nordberg and Norlake parts for the nuclear industry, and non-exclusive distributor of Weschler parts and Ingersoll Rand air start equipment for the nuclear industry. Specific regulations relating to equipment used in nuclear power generation require extensive testing and certification of replacement parts. Non-genuine parts and OEM parts not properly tested and certified cannot be used in nuclear applications
The Company’s primary competitors are other oilfield equipment manufacturers and service companies. While price is a major determinant in the competitive process, equipment availability, reputation, consistent quality, expeditious service, experienced personnel, access to parts inventories and market presence are also significant factors. A substantial portion of the Company’s business is obtained by competitive bids.
Publicly Traded Peers of Kirby Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Kirby Corporation | 7,065.86 | 3,489.43 |
| Ametek Inc | 57,847.61 | 7,863.92 |
| Arcosa Inc | 7,209.28 | 2,829.30 |
| Matson inc | 6,770.54 | 3,459.20 |
| Tidewater Inc | 4,174.08 | 1,346.42 |
| SUBTOTAL | 83,067.35 | 18,988.28 |
Sources: Kirby 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 Kirby Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Kirby's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| EMD | Named by the company | 85% |
| MTU | Named by the company | 85% |
| Woodward | Named by the company | 85% |
| Cummins | Named by the company | 85% |
| John Deere | Named by the company | 85% |
| Twin Disc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Caterpillar | Named by the company | 85% |
| Falk | Named by the company | 85% |
| Nordberg | Named by the company | 85% |
| Detroit Diesel | Named by the company | 85% |
| Lufkin | Named by the company | 85% |
| Volvo Penta | Named by the company | 85% |
| Cooper | Named by the company | 85% |
| Hannon | Named by the company | 85% |
| Norlake | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Kirby'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.
Kirby'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 |
|---|---|
| Kirby Corporation | Marine Transportation 58.90 % |
| Ametek Inc | Electronic Instruments Group 64.62 % |
| Arcosa Inc | Engineered Structures 51.67 % |
| Matson inc | Ocean Transportation Segment 81.35 % |
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).
Kirby'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kirby Corporation | 7,066 | 666,813 | 68,009 |
| Ametek Inc | 57,848 | 349,508 | 70,056 |
| Arcosa Inc | 7,209 | 442,770 | 76,901 |
| Matson inc | 6,771 | 17,296,000 | 2,319,000 |
| Tidewater Inc | 4,174 | 1,122,017 | 204,574 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 76,001 | 511,682 | 91,679 |
Kirby'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 |
|---|---|
| Ametek Inc | United States 52.86 % |
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.
Kirby's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 19 companies in Kirby's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Kirby ranks #4 of 19 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 3.88 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 2,076, indicating a moderately 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd | 64,600 | 36.13 % |
| 2 | Viking Holdings Ltd | 35,524 | 19.87 % |
| 3 | Carnival Corporation | 30,779 | 17.21 % |
| 4 | Kirby Corporation | 6,941 | 3.88 % |
| 5 | Matson inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Golar Lng Limited | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | International Seaways Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Golden Ocean Group Limited | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Tidewater Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Kirby'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.
Kirby'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd | 64,600 | -25.72 % |
| 2 | Viking Holdings Ltd | 35,524 | 32.60 % |
| 3 | Carnival Corporation | 30,779 | -27.25 % |
| 4 | Kirby Corporation | 6,941 | 53.67 % |
| 5 | Matson inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 6 | Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings ltd | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 7 | Golar Lng Limited | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 8 | International Seaways Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 9 | Golden Ocean Group Limited | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Kirby'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.
Kirby's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Cruise and Shipping industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (18 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | - | 47.32 % (avg) | - |
| Operating Margin | 14.01 % | industry median | -1.8 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 21.95 % | 37.55 % (avg) | -15.6 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 6.71 % | 15.60 % (avg) | -8.9 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.
Kirby's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Cruise and Shipping industry average (18 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 | 22.0x | 24.6x | -2.7x |
| EV / EBITDA | 11.2x | 15.4x | -4.2x |
| P/B | 2.2x | 4.0x | -1.8x |
| Return on Equity | 10.46 % | industry aggregate | -18.73 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 5.43 % | 5.60 % (avg) | -0.17 % |
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.
Kirby'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 | 34.15 % | -4.45 % | -23.50 % | 3.47 % | 23.95 % | 11.02 % | 5.64 % | 3.01 % |
| Operating Margin | 5.23 % | 8.53 % | -19.38 % | -11.49 % | 6.93 % | 10.84 % | 12.22 % | 14.75 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 1.84 % | 2.69 % | -4.91 % | -3.20 % | 2.46 % | 4.13 % | 4.74 % | 5.70 % |
| P/E | 53.9x | 35.8x | - | - | 32.5x | 20.8x | 23.6x | 18.2x |
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.
Kirby's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Kirby's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Kirby 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.
Kirby's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Kirby'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.
Kirby falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.11x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue -0.2% (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. A caveat worth reading alongside this chart: Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd alone holds 36% of this industry's market cap. In an industry this dominated by one leader, the framework will place nearly every OTHER company in "Dog" or "Question Mark" purely because relative share is measured against that leader, regardless of how strong those other companies actually are on their own fundamentals. Check the Profitability, Valuation and Financial Strength sections above before treating this quadrant label as a verdict.
Kirby'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 | Moderate | Industry HHI of 2,076 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | Lower than typical for the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 6.71 % vs industry average 15.60 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Kirby's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Kirby'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.
Kirby'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.
Kirby 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.
Kirby'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
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+5.7% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Outperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
Weaknesses
- Return on equity 18.7 points below the industry aggregate.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.11x).
Opportunities
- A meaningful share of tracked competitors (33.30 %) show financial-distress signals, a possible opening to gain share.
Threats
- Industry dominated by Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd, holding 36.13 % of industry market cap.
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.
Kirby'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kirby Corporation | 0.08 | 1.62 | 0.29 |
| Ametek Inc | 0.17 | 1.14 | 0.21 |
| Arcosa Inc | 0.50 | 2.38 | 1.12 |
| Matson inc | 0.21 | 0.86 | 0.13 |
| Tidewater Inc | 1.92 | 3.16 | 0.50 |
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.
Kirby'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kirby Corporation | Q2 2026 | +7.8 % | -4.9 % |
| Ametek Inc | Q2 2026 | +15.0 % | +13.5 % |
| Arcosa Inc | Q2 2026 | +1.7 % | +450.3 % |
| Matson inc | Q2 2026 | +16.7 % | +36.6 % |
| Tidewater Inc | Q2 2026 | +0.3 % | -71.0 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +10.9 % | +43.5 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Kirby'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kirby Corporation | Q2 2026 | - | +0.0 % |
| Ametek Inc | Q2 2026 | +14.6 % | +9.4 % |
| Arcosa Inc | Q2 2026 | +1.2 % | +117.8 % |
| Matson inc | Q2 2026 | - | +140.1 % |
| Tidewater Inc | Q2 2026 | +8.0 % | +185.6 % |
Kirby's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kirby Corporation | 5.83% | 6.35% | 10.46% |
| Ametek Inc | 9.68% | 10.72% | 14.55% |
| Arcosa Inc | 9.66% | 8.11% | 18.10% |
| Matson inc | 10.01% | 14.03% | 16.94% |
| Tidewater Inc | 10.65% | 12.38% | 18.68% |
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).
Kirby's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Kirby Corporation | 20.37 | 2.02 |
| Ametek Inc | 36.85 | 7.36 |
| Arcosa Inc | 14.68 | 2.55 |
| Matson inc | 15.10 | 1.96 |
| Tidewater Inc | 17.03 | 3.10 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 26.51 | 4.37 |
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.