How does KTCC's performance this quarter compare to its peers in the contract manufacturing and electronics sector?
Bottom line:
At the time of the GlobeNewswire announcement ( August 7 2025 ), Key Tronic Corporation (NASDAQ: KTCC) had not yet released any financial results for its fiscal‑2025 fourth quarter or full‑year. Consequently, there are no concrete earnings, revenue, margin, or cash‑flow figures available in the public record that can be directly compared with those of other contract‑manufacturing and electronics companies.
Below is a structured overview of what can be said right now, followed by guidance on how to evaluate KTCC’s performance once the results are posted on August 27, 2025.
1. What the announcement tells us (and does not tell us)
| Item | Information from the release | What we still need |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting date | Results will be released after market close on August 27, 2025. | Actual numbers (revenue, earnings, EBITDA, margins, cash flow, guidance). |
| Fiscal period covered | Q4 and full‑year of FY 2025 (FY 2025 ends September 30, 2025 for KTCC). | Year‑over‑year growth rates, quarter‑over‑quarter trends. |
| Sector classification | “Contract manufacturing and electronics.” | Peer set definition (e.g., Jabil, Flex, Celestica, Sanmina, Plexus, Benchmark Electronics). |
| Guidance or outlook | None provided in this notice. | Management’s forward‑looking statements, expectations for FY 2026. |
Takeaway: The press release is a scheduling notice, not a performance summary. Any comparative analysis must wait for the actual earnings release (or at least for any pre‑release guidance the company may provide in an investor call or filing).
2. How to Benchmark KTCC Once the Numbers Are Available
When the August 27 filing comes out, the most meaningful comparison points will be:
| Metric | Why it matters for a contract manufacturer | Typical peer‑group range (2023‑24 data) |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY & QoQ) | Indicates demand for contract assembly, testing, and design services. | 3‑12 % YoY growth for mid‑tier CMOs; high‑growth peers (e.g., Jabil) can hit >15 % in a strong year. |
| Gross margin | Reflects pricing power vs. labor/material cost pressure. | 8‑12 % for diversified CMOs; specialty/high‑mix manufacturers may run 12‑16 %. |
| EBITDA margin | Shows operating efficiency after SG&A. | 5‑9 % for midsized CMOs; top‑tier Flex/Jabil often >10 %. |
| Operating cash flow | Ability to fund working‑capital needs (inventory, receivables). | Positive and growing cash flow is typical; negative cash flow can signal inventory buildup or aggressive expansion. |
| Backlog / order intake | Forward‑looking demand indicator. | Peer backlogs often equal 1‑1.5× annual revenue; a growing backlog suggests strong pipeline. |
| Capital expenditures | Investment in automation, capacity, or new technology (e.g., 5G, automotive). | 3‑6 % of revenue is common; higher caps can signal strategic positioning. |
| Geographic exposure | Mix of US, Asia‑Pacific, and Europe sales can affect currency risk. | Diversified CMOs usually have 30‑40 % of revenue from Asia; a higher US share can be a hedge against Asian supply‑chain disruptions. |
| Customer concentration | Dependence on a few large OEMs (e.g., Apple, Cisco, automotive OEMs) can amplify risk. | “No single customer >15 % of revenue” is often a best‑practice threshold. |
When you have KTCC’s numbers, place them side‑by‑side with the median/mean of the peer group on each of the above metrics to see who is “ahead” or “behind.”
3. Current Industry Landscape (Q2 2025 – Q3 2025)
Even though KTCC’s results are not yet public, the broader contract‑manufacturing and electronics sector is experiencing a set of trends that will likely shape the comparative picture:
| Trend | Impact on peers | Potential impact on KTCC |
|---|---|---|
| Resilient demand from automotive electronics & EVs | Companies with strong automotive footprints (e.g., Flex, Jabil) have posted double‑digit revenue growth in Q2‑Q3 2025. | If KTCC has won/expanded automotive contracts, it could see above‑average growth; otherwise, it may lag. |
| Supply‑chain normalization | Improved component availability has eased cost pressures, lifting gross margins for many CMOs. | KTCC’s margin trajectory will depend on its supplier mix and whether it has locked in long‑term pricing. |
| Rising labor costs in the U.S. | U.S.-based CMOs are seeing margin compression unless they increase automation. | KTCC, headquartered in Washington, may be more exposed; any recent automation spend would be a key factor. |
| Shift toward “design‑for‑manufacturability” services | Firms offering integrated design‑to‑production (e.g., Sanmina) are capturing higher‑margin work. | KTCC’s service portfolio (design‑assist, test‑engineering) will determine if it can capture that premium. |
| Currency volatility | A stronger USD has pressured overseas‑based revenue for many peers. | If KTCC’s sales are heavily U.S.-centric, a strong dollar could be a tailwind for reported dollar‑denominated results. |
4. Peer Set to Watch (NASDAQ‑listed “contract manufacturers”)
| Ticker | Company | FY 2024 Revenue (approx.) | Primary Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| JBL | Jabil Inc. | $30 B | Broad‑based electronics, medical, automotive |
| FLEX | Flex Ltd. | $27 B | Consumer electronics, industrial, automotive |
| CSIQ | Canadian Solar (often considered a renewable‑energy manufacturer, not a direct CMO) – included only for context | ||
| SNC | Sanmina Corp. | $7 B | High‑mix, high‑value electronics (communications, aerospace) |
| PLAB | Plexus Corp. | $3 B | Design‑to‑manufacturing for medical & industrial |
| BEN | Benchmark Electronics | $2 B | Engineering‑focused manufacturing |
When KTCC’s numbers are released, you can calculate percentage differences against the median of these peers for each key metric (e.g., “KTCC’s gross margin of 9.8 % is 1.2 pp below the peer median of 11.0 %”).
5. Practical Steps to Perform the Comparison (once results are out)
Collect the data
- Download KTCC’s Form 8‑K / earnings press release (August 27, 2025).
- Pull the same quarter’s numbers for the peer companies (most have earnings releases within a similar window; use Bloomberg, Refinitiv, or the companies’ investor‑relations pages).
- Download KTCC’s Form 8‑K / earnings press release (August 27, 2025).
Standardize the period
- Ensure you’re comparing FY 2025 Q4 for all firms (or the most recent quarter if a peer’s fiscal year ends at a different month, adjust for seasonality).
- Ensure you’re comparing FY 2025 Q4 for all firms (or the most recent quarter if a peer’s fiscal year ends at a different month, adjust for seasonality).
Create a comparison table (example layout):
| Metric | KTCC | Peer Median | Peer Avg | Best Peer | Worst Peer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue YoY | 5.3 % | 7.2 % | 8.1 % | Flex +12 % | Sanmina ‑3 % |
| Gross margin | 9.8 % | 11.0 % | 10.9 % | Jabil 12.3 % | Plexus 8.1 % |
| EBITDA margin | 4.5 % | 6.2 % | 5.9 % | Flex 8.4 % | Sanmina 3.2 % |
| Operating cash flow (Δ YoY) | +$45 M | +$120 M | +$110 M | Jabil +$300 M | Plexus ‑$15 M |
| Backlog / Rev | 1.2× | 1.3× | 1.28× | Flex 1.6× | Benchmark 0.9× |
| Capex / Rev | 4.1 % | 5.0 % | 4.8 % | Jabil 6.2 % | Plexus 2.9 % |
Interpret the gaps
- Positive gaps (KTCC > peer median) suggest a relative strength (e.g., higher cash‑flow conversion).
- Negative gaps point to potential weakness (e.g., lower gross margin may indicate cost‑structure challenges).
- Positive gaps (KTCC > peer median) suggest a relative strength (e.g., higher cash‑flow conversion).
Add qualitative context
- Review management commentary for one‑off items (e.g., plant closures, acquisition integration costs).
- Factor in macro‑environment (e.g., inventory cycles, component pricing).
- Review management commentary for one‑off items (e.g., plant closures, acquisition integration costs).
Summarize
- Provide a concise “peer‑ranking” narrative: “KTCC posted a 5.3 % revenue increase, trailing the sector median of 7.2 % but outpacing the low‑end peers. Gross margin was 1.2 pp below the peer average, reflecting higher labor costs in its U.S. facilities. However, operating cash flow turned positive, a notable improvement relative to the sector’s average of +$110 M.”
6. What to Watch for in the August 27 Release
- Revenue breakdown by geography & end‑market (consumer electronics vs. automotive vs. medical).
- Any disclosed “one‑time” items (e.g., asset impairments, restructuring charges) that could distort underlying performance.
- Guidance for FY 2026 (top‑line growth, margin targets).
- Management’s commentary on supply‑chain, labor, and automation investments – these are the levers that differentiate peers in the current environment.
Bottom‑line answer (given the current information)
At present, there is no quantitative performance data for KTCC’s fiscal‑2025 fourth quarter, so a factual comparison with its contract‑manufacturing and electronics peers cannot be made. The August 27, 2025 earnings release will provide the necessary numbers (revenue, margins, cash flow, backlog, etc.). Once those figures are public, you can benchmark KTCC against the median and best‑in‑class peers such as Flex, Jabil, Sanmina, Plexus, and Benchmark using the metrics listed above. Until then, any comparison would be speculative.
Next step: Keep an eye on the market close of August 27, 2025, and retrieve KTCC’s earnings release. Then apply the framework outlined here to produce a precise, data‑driven peer comparison.