Connect with us

Business

The 20 Most and Least Profitable Companies, Per Employee

Published

on

Fortune500 20 Profit Per Employee Highest and Lowest

Can I share this graphic?
Yes. Visualizations are free to share and post in their original form across the web—even for publishers. Please link back to this page and attribute Visual Capitalist.
When do I need a license?
Licenses are required for some commercial uses, translations, or layout modifications. You can even whitelabel our visualizations. Explore your options.
Interested in this piece?
Click here to license this visualization.

The 20 Most and Least Profitable Companies, Per Employee

The Fortune 500 is an elite club of the biggest American businesses, which combined to generate profits of over $1.2 trillion in 2019.

But how much profit do these companies make on a per employee basis?

This visualization uncovers the answer by comparing the 20 companies with the most and least returns per employee, using calculations from Tipalti (based on the Fortune 500 list).

Top 20: Most Profit per Employee

Diving right in, the companies that make the most money per employee may surprise you.

Housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac take two of the top three spots, bringing in $1.9 million and $1.0 million per employee respectively in 2019.

The two U.S. government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are major players in the secondary mortgage market, buying and repackaging nearly half the mortgages in the country. The duo was allowed to retain their profits as of October 2019, instead of returning them to the U.S. Treasury.

CompanySectorProfit per EmployeeProfits ($M)Employees
Fannie Mae
(Federal National Mortgage Association)
Financials$1,888,000$14,1607,500
KKRFinancials$1,448,699$2,0051,384
Freddie Mac
(Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation)
Financials$1,046,721$7,2146,892
NRG EnergyEnergy$969,631$4,4384,577
EOG ResourcesEnergy$943,103$2,7352,900
BiogenHealth Care$795,811$5,8897,400
Blackstone GroupFinancials$705,680$2,0502,905
ConocoPhillipsEnergy$691,250$7,18910,400
Enterprise Products PartnersEnergy$628,904$4,5917,300
VisaBusiness Services$619,487$12,08019,500
Simon Property GroupFinancials$560,533$2,1023,750
Gilead SciencesHealth Care$456,441$5,38611,800
OneokEnergy$443,789$1,2792,882
FM GlobalFinancials$443,391$2,4795,591
MastercardBusiness Services$436,452$8,11818,600
Cheniere EnergyEnergy$423,529$6481,530
FacebookTechnology$411,308$18,48544,942
AppleTechnology$403,328$55,256137,000
Cincinnati FinancialFinancials$384,038$1,9975,200
Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceFinancials$373,989$3,7019,896

Apple employs 137,000 people—the largest workforce by far among the 40 companies profiled—but still makes $403,328 per employee. Facebook is the only other tech giant to bring in more money per employee at $411,308.

Bottom 20: Least Profit per Employee

On the other end of the spectrum, Uber is one of the most well-known companies currently bleeding profits, losing $316K per employee. In fact, the ride-hailing service lost approximately $1.8 billion in the second quarter of 2020 alone.

CompanySectorProfit per EmployeeProfits ($M)Employees
ApacheEnergy-$1,123,301-$3,5533,163
EnLink MidstreamEnergy-$825,830-$1,1191,355
Brighthouse FinancialFinancials-$556,391-$7401,330
PG&EEnergy-$332,870-$7,65623,000
Frontier CommunicationsTelecommunications-$322,706-$5,91118,317
Uber TechnologiesTechnology-$316,208-$8,50626,900
HessEnergy-$229,859-$4081,775
CotyHousehold Products-$199,158-$3,78419,000
Devon EnergyEnergy-$197,222-$3551,800
Altria GroupFood, Beverages & Tobacco-$177,123-$1,2937,300
National Oilwell VarcoEnergy-$175,927-$6,09534,645
Equitable HoldingsFinancials-$171,584-$1,73310,100
Chesapeake EnergyEnergy-$133,913-$3082,300
CenturyLinkTelecommunications-$123,976-$5,26942,500
MosaicChemicals-$84,683-$1,06712,600
AlcoaMaterials-$81,522-$1,12513,800
Targa ResourcesEnergy-$77,985-$2092,680
Voya FinancialFinancials-$58,500-$3516,000
WayfairRetailing-$57,992-$98516,985
Occidental PetroleumEnergy-$46,319-$66714,400

COVID-19 has also had an intense effect on some of the companies at the bottom end of the profit per employee spectrum. Chesapeake Energy and Frontier Communications are just two examples that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in recent months—they each lost $134K and $322K per employee in 2019 respectively.

I’m pretty confident we will see more bankruptcies than in any business person’s lifetime.

James Hammond, CEO of BankruptcyData

Profit per Employee by Sector

When all the companies in the Fortune 500 are taken into account, sector-specific numbers reveal interesting trends.

Financials bring in the most profit per employee at $116K, while Food and Drug Stores see 17 times less profit at $6.7K per employee. In fact, eight out of the top 20 most profitable companies are found in the financial sector.

SectorProfits per EmployeeProfits ($M)Employees
Financials$116,228$378,4453,256,067
Technology$87,532$252,8362,888,490
Energy$85,547$75,410881,505
Media$57,947$21,634373,333
Health Care$54,679$145,1662,654,872
Telecommunications$50,636$38,251755,417
F&B incl. Tobacco$41,946$42,9241,023,317
Business Services$39,354$36,835936,000
Chemicals$27,977$11,328404,888
Apparel$26,154$7,776297,300
Industrials$25,827$27,0061,045,675
Aerospace & Defence$24,793$23,903964,100
Household Products$24,504$10,415425,038
Transportation$21,762$32,4541,491,358
Engineering & Construction$19,648$6,773344,716
Materials$13,408$6,024449,252
Retailing$10,373$67,3186,489,923
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure$9,653$16,8801,748,714
Wholesalers$9,025$5,842647,312
Motor Vehicles & Parts$8,113$7,108876,123
Food & Drug Stores$6,746$8,3551,238,645

Interestingly, as a whole, the energy sector comes in third place in terms of profit per employee at $86K—that said, nine out of the bottom 20 least profitable companies are also found in this highly volatile industry.

Though the vast majority of businesses impacted by COVID-19 have been small to mid-sized companies, the above calculations also show that Fortune 500 companies are not safe, either.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist
Click for Comments

Real Estate

Modular Housing vs. Traditional Housing: How Do They Compare?

Modular housing can be completed 40% faster and costs 10-25% less than traditional construction methods. Is the future of housing modular?

Published

on

The following content is sponsored by Boxabl

Modular Housing vs. Traditional Housing: How Do They Compare?

The U.S. needs new houses. Lots of them. 

With housing prices nearing six times annual incomes, increasing supply is a must if there is any hope of bringing down house prices, and modular housing could be the solution.

This visualization is the third and final piece of the Reimagining Home Series from our sponsor Boxabl, where we compare the benefits of modular housing against traditional construction methods. Let’s start with the basics.

What Is Modular Housing?

Modular homes are built offsite, in standardized sections, usually in a factory setting. They are then transported to the building site and assembled on a waiting foundation. Once complete, modular homes look just like any other house. 

Modular housing is not the same as manufactured homes, which are also sometimes called mobile homes. Like modular housing, manufactured homes are built offsite in a factory, but the key difference is that they can be moved after being assembled. Modular homes aren’t meant to be moved again after final assembly.

6 Ways Modular Homes Differ to Traditional Homes

The following benefits are based on information from the Modular Home Building Association, as well as a paper given at the 2020 Creative Construction e-Conference by members of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington.

1. Speed of Construction

Because of the piecemeal nature of modular construction, many building activities can be done simultaneously, greatly reducing the overall time of completion. At the same time, because construction happens indoors, weather delays aren’t an issue. Overall, a modular housing project can be completed in 40% less time than using traditional building construction methods.

2. Cost Effectiveness

Standardization of design, less transportation of materials onsite, and the reduced impact of weather are some of the reasons that modular housing can be much cheaper than traditional building methods. According to the authors of the paper, there was a 10-25% decrease in construction costs for modular housing, again, compared to traditional methods.

3. Customizable

A common misconception is that modular housing isn’t customizable. While many manufacturers will often begin with a starter floor plan, they may also offer various customization options throughout the home. 

4. Safety Record

Construction is a dangerous way to make a living. In 2021, construction and extraction workers held the number two spot for fatal occupational injuries in the U.S., with 951 work fatalities.

When you drill down into that number, construction tradespeople are in the majority, by far, with 726 that year alone.

DescriptionFatalities
Transportation and material moving occupations1,523
Construction and extraction occupations951
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations475
Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations356
Management occupations323
Protective service occupations302
Production occupations242
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations218
Sales and related occupations200
Food preparation and serving related occupations101
Office and administrative support occupations91
Unknown occupation71
Personal care and service occupations64
Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations57
Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations45
Community and social services occupations40
Healthcare support occupations32
Architecture and engineering occupations29
Business and financial operations occupations27
Educational instruction and library occupations16
Legal occupations11
Life, physical, and social science occupations10
Computer and mathematical occupations6
Military occupations0
Total5,190

Because modular construction happens in a controlled, factory environment, the number of accidents decreases by 80% compared to traditional building methods.

5. Environmental Impact

Anyone who has walked past a residential build site can testify to the amount of waste produced during construction. Modular construction is more efficient and therefore produces less waste. And because onsite construction is limited to assembly, there is less dust and noise. Carbon emissions are also 38% lower.

6. Built to Last

Modular housing is as good, if not better constructed, than many traditionally-built houses. The factory environment allows for superior quality control, and homes built this way use 15-20% more wood per square foot, which makes them stronger. Moreover, in a study commissioned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency after 1992’s Hurricane Andrew found that modular housing “performed much better than conventional residential framing.” 

A Market On The Rise

Not only is modular housing cheaper and greener than traditional construction methods, it is also a market on the rise. 

According to a recent report, the global modular construction market is expected to reach $54 billion by 2027, with a CAGR of 2.9% between 2021 to 2027.

Thinking Outside of the Box on Housing

Modular housing could be a solution to the housing affordability crisis not only in the U.S., but around the world. And with the global city population expected to hit 68% by 2050, it’s time to think outside the box on housing.

Boxabl uses advanced, mass production techniques to build and ship homes that significantly lower the cost of home ownership for everyone.

This is the final piece in the Reimagining Home Series from our sponsor, Boxabl. Be sure to read parts one and two on urbanization and affordable housing

Visual Capitalist Logo

Learn more about how Boxabl is helping tackle the housing affordability crisis.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist
Click for Comments

You may also like

Subscribe

Continue Reading

Subscribe

Popular