Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Columbus McKinnon Corporation
How Columbus McKinnon Corporation stacks up
CMCO · against 2,399 other Industrials companies
Growth
85/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #349 of 2,400 · scores higher than 85% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score240 peers with a growth score of 80–89, including CMCO · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 85?
Weighted metrics compared with all Industrials companies.Mainly thanks to its revenue growth and 3-year revenue growth, which are stronger than most Industrials peers.
- The loss per share widened. Earnings per share growth: — vs peer median 7.1%
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 86% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 16.1% vs peer median 4.2%
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 97% of peers. Revenue growth: 55.2% vs peer median 4.4%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = CMCO, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | CMCO | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 2,422 reported | 55.2% | 4.4% | 97% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 1,764 reported | Not reported | 7.1% | — | — | 33% |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 2,385 reported | 16.1% | 4.2% | 86% | 33% |
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around CMCO| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.9B CNY (≈$682M) | 100 | 44 | |
| 1 | 9.4B CNY (≈$1.3B) | 100 | 84 | |
| 1 | 74.1B TWD (≈$2.3B) | 100 | 60 | |
| 1 | 63.0B USD | 100 | 55 | |
| 1 | 22.5B NOK (≈$2.1B) | 100 | 72 | |
| 349 | 5.9B CNY (≈$831M) | 85 | 90 | |
| 349 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score