Purecycle Competitors
| PCT Stock | USD 5.76 0.08 1.41% |
Purecycle Technologies vs BW LPG Correlation Summary
Very good diversification
The correlation between PCT and BWLP is -0.36, which Macroaxis classifies as Very good diversification for the selected horizon. Used correctly, the chart helps investors judge whether adding the second position genuinely diversifies the first.
Moving together with Purecycle Stock
Moving against Purecycle Stock
The concept of mean reversion suggests that Purecycle Technologies' price will eventually return toward its long-run average. High prices may deter value investors, while unusually low prices often attract buyers who anticipate a recovery.
Purecycle Technologies Competition Correlation Matrix
Correlation analysis between Purecycle Technologies Holdings and its competitors helps investors understand whether diversification is real or only superficial inside the same peer group. This matrix is most informative when investors want to know whether adding another peer would improve diversification, increase crowding, or leave total risk largely unchanged.
High positive correlations
| High negative correlations
|
Risk-Adjusted Indicators
There is a big difference between Purecycle Stock performing well and Purecycle Technologies Company doing well as a business compared to the competition. There are so many exceptions to the norm that investors cannot definitively determine what's good or bad unless they analyze Purecycle Technologies' multiple risk-adjusted performance indicators across the competitive landscape. These indicators are quantitative in nature and help investors forecast volatility and risk-adjusted expected returns across various positions.| Mean Deviation | Jensen Alpha | Sortino Ratio | Treynor Ratio | Semi Deviation | Expected Shortfall | Potential Upside | Value @Risk | Maximum Drawdown | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CECO | 2.53 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 4.95 | 5.35 | 29.09 | |||
| TRTN-PC | 0.29 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.46 | 0.65 | 2.16 | |||
| ENOV | 2.53 | -0.09 | 0.00 | -0.09 | 0.00 | 4.68 | 19.73 | |||
| CMPO | 2.45 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.19 | 3.11 | 6.29 | 20.92 | |||
| DXPE | 2.25 | 0.57 | 0.20 | 0.24 | 2.31 | 4.74 | 13.86 | |||
| ZIM | 2.74 | 0.60 | 0.20 | 0.34 | 2.46 | 5.78 | 28.64 | |||
| PSIX | 4.65 | 0.28 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 6.69 | 9.14 | 48.13 | |||
| UPWK | 3.02 | -0.75 | 0.00 | -0.51 | 0.00 | 6.23 | 26.37 | |||
| ARLO | 2.35 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 2.99 | 3.61 | 32.53 | |||
| BWLP | 1.94 | 0.31 | 0.10 | 0.39 | 2.84 | 4.04 | 15.51 |
Purecycle Technologies Competitive Analysis
Purecycle Technologies' competitive standing becomes clearer when measured alongside CECO Environmental, Triton International, and Enovis Corp. With 8.4 M in revenue and a 1.01 B market value, Purecycle Technologies anchors one end of the peer spectrum. Purecycle Technologies posts a -68.76% return on equity, reflecting current earnings headwinds. Top-line revenue favors CECO Environmental by a wide margin: 774.4 M to 8.4 M. Purecycle Technologies commands the larger valuation at 1.01 B versus 195,050. Enovis Corp leads with -58.27% return on equity versus -68.76% for Purecycle Technologies.| Better Than Average | Worse Than Peers | View Performance Chart |
Peer Performance Charts
How to Analyze Purecycle Technologies Against Peers
Purecycle Technologies' peer analysis compares Purecycle Technologies with related companies to put valuation, quality, and risk metrics in context. This helps determine whether recent performance is company-specific or broadly sector-driven. A practical workflow includes:- Set a relevant peer group: Include direct competitors and close alternatives with comparable business exposure.
- Benchmark core financials: Compare profitability, growth, capital structure, and cash flow quality.
- Check valuation dispersion: Review whether Purecycle Technologies trades at a premium or discount versus peers and why.
- Evaluate risk profile: Compare volatility, drawdowns, and correlation to avoid false diversification assumptions.
- Document the thesis: Record where Purecycle Technologies leads or lags and what catalysts could close or widen the gap.