CapsimGlobal Wrapped

8 Rounds.
9 Teams.
One Wild Ride.

The class started with identical spreadsheets. They built a $2.55B industry across three global markets — and ended up in nine completely different places.

21
Products Built
$11.14B
Cumulative Revenue
7,898
Total Employees
$3.35B
Market Cap Growth
Scroll to explore

From Parity to
Dramatic Divergence

Nine teams started in the same place. By Round 8, their stock prices ranged from $17 to $452 — and the gap was already widening by Round 3.
— The Data
Nine identical starting points. Watch what happens.
Stock price trajectories for all 9 teams across 8 rounds of simulationStock Price$0$20$60$100$140$180$220$260$300$340$380$420$460$500R0R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8IRV $452.38HAR $392.53AND $298.63BAL $195.48GAR $172.89DIG $150.66CHE $58.36FER $51.06ERI $16.99
Andrews
Baldwin
Chester
Digby
Erie
Ferris
Garrett
Harper
Irving
From $20.62 to a 27:1 spread. Same starting capital. Different decisions.

Every Team Has
a Story

Not who won or lost — but the decisions that made each team's journey unique.

Irving
The Cost-Engineered Margin King
Ignite finished the simulation with a 72.8% contribution margin — the highest-margin product in the class — built on a class-low labor cost per unit. That single Low Tech product sold 9.4M units across three geographies at full second-shift plant utilization, and Irving's R8 profit of $128M closed the simulation as the largest single-round haul any team recorded. Cumulative profit reached $383M — the highest in the class — and Irving took zero emergency loans across eight rounds.
60.8%
Mean Contribution Margin (#1)
$383M
Cumulative Profit (#1)
Harper
The Multi-Geo Throughput Maximizer
Heft and Hue both finished with zero inventory and plant utilization near 200% — both products ran at effectively full two-shift capacity and sold every unit produced. Heft was the class volume leader at 9.7M units sold with a 55.0% contribution margin; Hue led High Tech in Germany. Harper held the top market share in Germany at 17.0% and ranked second in cumulative profit at $343M and second in stock, with zero emergency loans across eight rounds. Both products played into all three geographies — the only team besides Irving to combine geographic breadth with margin discipline above 50%.
$343M
Cumulative Profit (#2)
53.6%
Mean Margin (#2)
Andrews
The Volume-and-Coverage Leader
Andrews ended R8 with 13.8M units sold — more than any other team — and the #1 global market share at 18.1%, including the top share in the United States at 18.2%. Sales of $462M led the class. The portfolio carried three products (Andrews was the only team with more than two): Able in Low Tech, plus Ace and Ark in High Tech. Eight straight profitable rounds delivered $258M cumulative profit (#3), funded along the way by three emergency loans totaling $24M as the portfolio expanded.
18.1%
Global Market Share (#1)
13.8M
Units Sold (#1)
Baldwin
The China Specialist
Baldwin closed R8 owning 22.6% of the China market — the only team holding more than 21% in any single geography — while sitting middle-of-pack overall. Baker (Low Tech) drove most of Baldwin's volume into China at premium pricing, but the trade-off showed in the cost line: Baker's 22.7% contribution margin was the thinnest Low Tech margin in the class. The High Tech product Best carried more of the profit weight at a 47.5% margin with zero unsold inventory. Cumulative profit reached $168M and stock closed at $195 — middle of the pack despite the geographic dominance.
22.6%
China Market Share (#1)
1,611
Employees (#1)
Garrett
The Balanced Two-Product Operator
Gaffe (High Tech) finished at a 51.8% contribution margin with zero inventory; Goober (Low Tech) covered the volume side at 27.5% margin. Eight straight profitable rounds and a single $3M emergency loan in R4 produced $186M cumulative profit, fourth-highest in the class. Garrett held positions across all three geographies without leading any single one. Stock closed at $173, having risen every round from R3 onward.
$186M
Cumulative Profit (#4)
51.8%
Gaffe Contribution Margin
Digby
The Lean High Tech Specialist
Digby was one of two teams (with Erie) to skip Low Tech entirely — both products (Daze and Dome) lived in High Tech. Daze finished with a 51.5% contribution margin on 3.5M units sold; Dome added 333K units at 31.9% margin. The operation ran with 359 employees (fewest in the class) and zero emergency loans across eight rounds. Cumulative profit reached $114M, and the R8 profit of $42M came on the back of Daze's clean margin rather than headcount or geography.
359
Employees
0
Emergency Loans
Chester
The Floor-to-Recovery Story
Chester closed R8 at a $58 stock — the class's most dramatic recovery from the $1 floor — climbing through $36 in R7 after two rounds at the floor. The crisis traced to an R5 operating loss of $16.3M (the second-deepest single-round loss in the class), which triggered two emergency loans across R5 and R6. Both products closed with healthy margins above 32%, but Chester sat out China entirely and held single-digit positions in the U.S. and Germany.
$58
Final Stock
$1
→ $58 R6 to R8 Recovery
Ferris
The Early-Peak, Late-Recovery Arc
Ferris posted the highest R1 stock price in the class at $57, then hit the $1 floor in R3 and again in R5 before building a three-round recovery across R6–R8 to close at $51 stock. Future (Low Tech) and Fig (High Tech) both finished with margins above 32% and effectively zero unsold inventory. Germany became Ferris's stronghold at #3 share, even as the team sat out China entirely.
$51
Final Stock
$57
R1 Stock (#1)
Erie
The R8 Operational Turnaround
Erie closed R8 with a $10M operating profit and stock back to $17 — the first round off the $1 floor since R2, after holding the floor through R3–R7. R8's profit followed an R7 return to the black, Erie's first consecutive profitable rounds since R1–R2. Both products finished with positive margins on a 100% High Tech portfolio: Edge at 19.8% under heavy labor costs, Eat at 30.1%.
$10M
R8 Profit
$17
Final Stock

What Actually
Happened to the Money

Stock price reflects perception. Cumulative profit reflects reality.

Cumulative Profit
Stock
$0
Irving
$383M
$452.38
Harper
$343M
$392.53
Andrews
$258M
$298.63
Garrett
$186M
$172.89
Baldwin
$168M
$195.48
Digby
$114M
$150.66
Ferris
$34M
$51.06
Chester
$30M
$58.36
Erie
-$7M
$16.99
Stock price and cumulative profit lined up almost exactly — the market read this class's operations cleanly.

Three Markets.
Three Different Battles.

United States, Germany, China — same products, same starting position, three completely different competitive structures.

United States

USD
The Battleground
All nine teams competed here and the field stayed tight — nobody broke away. At the top, demand outran supply: the four best-selling Low Tech products all sold out.
27.1M
R8 Units Sold
+10.0%
Next-Year Growth
9 of 9
Teams Active
Low Tech 14.2M (52%) High Tech 12.9M (48%)
AND
18.2%
HAR
16.5%
IRV
15.9%
BAL
14.0%
GAR
11.0%
DIG
7.9%
CHE
7.0%
ERI
6.8%
FER
2.7%
Top Low Tech
Ignite (IRV) 3.5M · Heft (HAR) 3.3M · Able (AND) 2.6M
Top High Tech
Gaffe (GAR) 1.8M · Daze (DIG) 1.7M · Hue (HAR) 1.5M

Germany

EUR
The Growth Frontier
The most evenly split market — every team held a real foothold, none past Harper's 17%. The class spread its fast-growing runway broadly rather than letting anyone corner it.
18.3M
R8 Units Sold
+29.6%
Next-Year Growth
9 of 9
Teams Active
Low Tech 6.0M (33%) High Tech 12.4M (67%)
HAR
17.0%
AND
16.2%
FER
14.1%
IRV
11.1%
DIG
10.8%
BAL
10.5%
ERI
9.2%
CHE
5.6%
GAR
5.4%
Top Low Tech
Heft (HAR) 1.3M · Able (AND) 1.3M · Future (FER) 1.3M
Top High Tech
Hue (HAR) 1.8M · Daze (DIG) 1.8M · Best (BAL) 1.7M

China

CNY
The Concentration
The most concentrated market — the top three owned over 60% of it, led by Baldwin. Two teams skipped China entirely, ceding the class's fastest-growing market to everyone else.
26.0M
R8 Units Sold
+37.3%
Next-Year Growth
7 of 9
Teams Active
Low Tech 22.4M (86%) High Tech 3.6M (14%)
BAL
22.6%
HAR
20.4%
AND
20.2%
IRV
18.6%
GAR
13.0%
ERI
3.5%
DIG
1.8%
Top Low Tech
Ignite (IRV) 5.1M · Baker (BAL) 5.0M · Heft (HAR) 5.0M
Top High Tech
Gaffe (GAR) 787K · Ace (AND) 582K · Best (BAL) 577K

The Records Your
Class Set

The records your class set — and a few moments only the data noticed.

18.2%
US Market Share
Andrews — #1 share in the most contested geography, with all nine teams active
17.0%
Germany Market Share
Harper — #1 share in the most evenly split market
60.8%
Mean Margin
Irving — #1 mean contribution margin across all products in class
3 of 9
Zero-Loan Operators
Irving, Harper, Digby — three teams ran the full 8 decision rounds without an emergency loan
8 of 8
Profitable-Round Streak
Garrett, Harper, Andrews, Baldwin — four teams cleared every decision round in the black
$1 → $58
Floor-to-$58 Recovery
Chester — held the $1 stock floor in R5 and R6, then the stock climbed through $36 in R7 to close at $58
$1 → $51
Floor-to-$51 Recovery
Ferris — hit the floor in R3 and again in R5; three consecutive profitable rounds R6–R8 closed at $51
$1 → $17
R8 Operational Turnaround
Erie — held the $1 floor for five rounds (R3–R7), then closed R8 profitable at $10M and lifted off the floor
359 employees
Lean Operation
Digby — fewest headcount in the class while running zero loans and finishing with 41.7% mean margin

Debates Your Class
Will Keep Having

The best simulations don't give answers — they surface questions worth wrestling with.

The Loss That Won

Irving was the only team to lose money in Round 1 — and it carried the lowest stock price in the class out of that round, $8.35. Eight rounds later, Irving had won everything: $452 stock, $383M cumulative profit, the best margins in the class. Was that Round-1 loss the necessary down payment on a cost-engineered winner — or a risky start that simply happened to pay off?

Same Bet, Opposite Ends

Digby and Erie made the same structural bet — 100% High Tech, not one Low Tech product between them. Digby finished sixth, at $151 stock with $114M in cumulative profit. Erie finished last, at $17, the only team in the red. If the strategy was identical, what actually separated them — and how early in the eight rounds was the gap already decided?

The Boldest Bet

Baldwin made the class's most focused bet — pour everything into China, the fastest-growing market in the simulation, and own it. It worked: Baldwin took 22.6% of China, a bigger share than any team claimed in any single geography. And yet Baldwin finished mid-pack — fourth on stock, on the thinnest Low Tech margins in the class. Did the focused bet underperform, or did the execution inside it?