Industry comparison

Water collection, treatment and supply by regions.

Compare the eligible Water collection, treatment and supply cohort across regions. Each row keeps company scale alongside health, profitability, growth and risk context.

SIC 3650-company minimum cohort Calculated 2 Jul 2026
Compare size bandsIndustry profile
Comparable regions11Eligible public cohorts
Company base1,989Across displayed regions
Largest cohort392London
Largest cohort health62Largest cohort’s average score
Eligible rows110 excluded below cohort
Invalid metric rows0Omitted instead of inferred

Cohort comparison

Water collection, treatment and supply by regions

Ranked by company count. Profitability is a derived 0–100 score; lower insolvency-risk score is safer.

11 rows
#UK regionCompaniesHealth scoreProfitability scoreGross marginGrowthRisk
1 LondonE12000007 · find companies 392 62 40 51.9% 0.0% 31
2 South EastE12000008 · find companies 325 66 41 30.3% 0.0% 28
3 North WestE12000002 · find companies 215 63 40 0.0% 0.0% 30
4 West MidlandsE12000005 · find companies 204 65 40 7.9% 0.0% 29
5 South WestE12000009 · find companies 175 65 40 17.7% 0.0% 28
6 Yorkshire and The HumberE12000003 · find companies 173 62 41 3.2% 52.0% 32
7 East of EnglandE12000006 · find companies 169 64 40 0.0% 0.0% 28
8 East MidlandsE12000004 · find companies 119 66 40 1.5% 0.0% 27
9 WalesW99999999 · find companies 110 63 41 55.2% 0.0% 30
10 North EastE12000001 · find companies 56 60 41 100.0% 0.0% 32
11 Northern IrelandN99999999 · find companies 51 70 40 0.0% 0.0% 26
Benchmark context Companies House aggregate snapshot Minimum cohort 50 Calculated 2 Jul 2026