Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Pitney Bowes Inc.
How Pitney Bowes Inc. stacks up
PBI · against 2,399 other Industrials companies
Growth
52/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #1,141 of 2,400 · scores higher than 52% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score240 peers with a growth score of 50–59, including PBI · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 52?
Weighted metrics compared with all Industrials companies.A mix: stronger earnings per share growth, but weaker 3-year revenue growth and revenue growth than most Industrials peers.
- slower revenue growth over three years: weaker than 86% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: -6.7% vs peer median 4.2%
- slower revenue growth over the last year: weaker than 79% of peers. Revenue growth: -5.3% vs peer median 4.4%
- Earnings per share turned from a loss to a profit. Earnings per share growth: — vs peer median 7.1%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = PBI, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | PBI | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 2,422 reported | -5.3% | 4.4% | 21% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 1,764 reported | Not reported | 7.1% | — | — | 33% |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 2,385 reported | -6.7% | 4.2% | 14% | 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 PBI| 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 | |
| 1,141 | 2.0B USD | 52 | 55 | |
| 1,141 |
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