CapsimOps Wrapped
Real class data · Spring 2026

Same Starting Conditions.
Different Outcomes.

Ten teams entered with identical resources, information, and market conditions. Eight rounds later, their financial results looked dramatically different. The difference was in the decisions they made along the way.

$4.93B
Cumulative Revenue
$969M
Industry Size
$1.90B
Market Cap Growth
2,683
Employees
Scroll to explore

One Starting Point.
Ten Different Paths.

Same resources. Same market. Same eight rounds. Everything that separated these teams, they decided.
— The Data
Press play on eight years of decisions.
Stock price trajectories for all 10 teams across 8 rounds of simulationStock Price$0$100$200$300$400R0R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8DIG $387.88CHE $201.80GAR $88.84IRV $87.66FER $82.41JAS $53.72BAL $1.80AND $1.00ERI $1.00HAR $1.00
Andrews
Baldwin
Chester
Digby
Erie
Ferris
Garrett
Harper
Irving
Jasper
From $4.59 to a 387:1 spread. Same market. 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.

Digby
The Automation Play
Digby ran the most automated plant in the class, and the ledger showed it: $337.50M in cumulative profit, more than double any other team's, on a 73.8% contribution margin that was also the class's best. Automation was set to a class-high 6.5 average, and labor cost per unit came down to $3.15, the lowest in the class. The one emergency loan came early: in Round 3, Digby launched Deft and Duck and borrowed $19.90M, in a round that still closed profitable. From there profit rose every round, to a $119.79M Round 8 that was the biggest single round any team posted. Four products, the lead in both tiers, and the top stock in the class from Round 5 to the close.
$337.50M
Cumulative Profit
$3.15
Labor Cost per Unit
Chester
The Steady Climb
Chester's profit rose in each of the seven rounds after Round 1, from a $3.77M loss in Round 1 to a $48.32M profit in Round 8, without a single emergency loan. Cake did the volume work at 2.04M units sold and a 74.5% contribution margin, while Cone was the highest-volume High Tech product in the class. The plant reached the class's top 130 productivity index, with Cake automated to 6.5, alongside the second-biggest HR investment in the class. It finished second on profit, sales and stock, and paid the largest dividend in the class at the close.
$162.02M
Cumulative Profit
7
Straight Rounds of Profit Improvement
Irving
The High Tech Specialist
Irving went all-in on High Tech and ran the tidiest operation in the class: zero emergency loans, zero unsold units at the close, and $79.08M in cumulative profit, third in the class. Ignite and Indigo both sold out, carrying the tier's second-largest market share at 22.6%, behind only Digby. Labor cost per unit came down to $4.71 on a 130 productivity index, alongside the class's biggest HR investment at $18.50M. Profit rose every round from Round 2 on and doubled in the final round, to a $37.58M profit.
$79.08M
Cumulative Profit
22.6%
High Tech Market Share
Ferris
The Cost Cutter
Ferris went after unit cost: material cost fell to $5.14 per unit, the lowest of any team, and labor to $4.35, second only to Digby, for a 70.52% contribution margin that ranked second. No emergency loan was ever taken, the ledger stayed profitable for six straight rounds from Round 3, and the best round came in Round 7 at $27.33M in profit. Automation had been set to 5.55, second-highest in the class. The one thing left on the floor was inventory: 1.03M units at the close, most of it Fast, the product with the class's fourth-highest margin.
$76.86M
Cumulative Profit
$5.14
Material Cost per Unit
Garrett
First Off the Floor
Garrett was the first team off the $1.00 stock floor and stayed off it: its stock stood at $9.51 after Round 2 while every other team's was still at the floor. The Round 1 loss was the smallest in the class at $2.36M, and every round after it was profitable, seven straight, tied for the longest run in the class. Gaffe sold out with zero inventory at 100% plant utilization, and Garrett's labor came down to $5.41 a unit across its lines. Three emergency loans came in Rounds 5 through 7, each in a profitable round: in Round 4 Garrett added capacity and raised automation, then borrowed in Round 5; in Round 5 it added more capacity, then borrowed in Round 6. Return on assets closed at 40.4%, second in the class.
$59.39M
Cumulative Profit
7 of 8
Rounds Profitable
Jasper
The Second Half
Jasper's run split in two: three losing rounds, then five straight profitable ones from Round 4 to the close, finishing with its best round at $18.39M in Round 8. The stock left the $1.00 floor in Round 5 and rose every round after. Juice did the heavy lifting, 1.53M units sold with its plant running at 182% utilization, while labor cost per unit came down to $8.84. Return on equity closed at 46.5%, second in the class, and Jasper was one of only two teams to pay a dividend at the close.
$27.06M
Cumulative Profit
5 of 8
Rounds Profitable
Baldwin
The Late Turn
Baldwin closed the run selling clean, zero unsold units on Baker and Best, and in the black, with a $2.30M profit in Round 7 and another in Round 8 after six losing rounds. Its $9.00M Round 1 Advanced Operations investment matched Digby's as the biggest opening-round investment in the class, and the module spend rose again in Round 6 and stayed elevated through Round 8. The line was all High Tech, holding 7.5% of the tier's market share, with Best carrying a 56.6% contribution margin. Two emergency loans came in Rounds 5 and 6, both in losing rounds.
0
Unsold Units at the Close
$2.30M
Round 7 Profit
Erie
The Round 3 Breakout
Erie's Round 3 was the class's fourth-best that round on both profit and stock: a $4.04M profit and a $7.33 stock price. In Round 4 Erie launched Epic and took the first of five emergency loans. By the close the plant was running hot: Eat sold 1.07M units through a plant running well past capacity, Erie's 183% mean utilization was the highest in the class, and labor cost per unit finished at $17.10. The last round turned a $2.21M profit.
$4.04M
Round 3 Profit
183%
Mean Plant Utilization
Andrews
The Sold-Out Line
Andrews ran a single product, Able, and closed with nothing left on the shelf: 694K units sold at 110% plant utilization, zero inventory. The eight rounds all closed at a loss, with an emergency loan each round and the stock at the $1.00 floor throughout. Material cost per unit was cut to $6.49 from the $16.17 every team started with, the third-lowest in the class, with most of the Advanced Operations spend going to Suppliers. Round 5 came within $460K of break-even, the closest the ledger got.
0
Unsold Units at the Close
$6.49
Material Cost per Unit
Harper
The Clean Floor
Harper closed with a clean floor and the leanest crew in the class: every one of Heft's 337K units sold, zero inventory, and 111 employees. The ledger never turned: all eight rounds closed at a loss, an emergency loan came every round, and the stock stayed at $1.00 from Round 1 to the close. Material cost per unit came down to $9.95 from the $16.17 start, while the productivity index held at its 100 starting mark, the HR module went unused, and the plant ran at 61% utilization. Heft still closed with a positive 24.4% contribution margin on a single line.
0
Unsold Units at the Close
111
Employees

Learning,
Made Visible.

The pattern of the results says more than any single number. Round 1 knocked every team's stock to the $1.00 floor. From a $34.8M collective loss in Round 2, collective profit rose every round to $259.9M in Round 8. That round-over-round climb is what compounding decisions look like — measured in the numbers rather than asserted.

Collective class profit by round, Round 0 through Round 8−$100M$0M$100M$200M$300MR0R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8$259.9M

Class profit, all 10 teams combined, by round.

What Actually
Happened to the Money

Stock price reflects perception. Cumulative profit reflects reality.

Cumulative Profit
Stock
$0
Digby
$337M
$387.88
Chester
$162M
$201.80
Irving
$79M
$87.66
Ferris
$77M
$82.41
Garrett
$59M
$88.84
Jasper
$27M
$53.72
Baldwin
-$20M
$1.80
Erie
-$29M
$1.00
Andrews
-$47M
$1.00
Harper
-$80M
$1.00
At the end of Round 7, stock price and cumulative profit ranked the top six teams in exactly the same order. The final round's share-price moves reshuffled the middle of the table.

Two Tiers.
Two Trajectories.

CapsimOps runs on two technology tiers. The teams didn't just compete — they built distinct competitive structures in each, growing at very different rates.

Low Tech

The Volume Base
13.5MUnits @ Final
+114%Growth
53.8%of Industry
Low Tech stayed the volume tier at 53.8% of industry units, more than doubling over the run (+114.4%). Digby led at 32.2% market share, more than double Chester's 15.1%, with Ferris and Garrett a step behind; Baldwin and Irving ran no Low Tech volume at the close.
DIG
32.2%
CHE
15.1%
FER
13.3%
GAR
13.2%
JAS
11.3%
ERI
7.9%
AND
5.1%
HAR
1.8%

High Tech

The Growth Frontier
11.6MUnits @ Final
+330%Growth
46.2%of Industry
High Tech grew to more than four times its starting volume (+330%) and closed at 46.2% of industry units. Digby led here too at 29.5%, with Irving's all-High Tech line second at 22.6% and Chester third; Andrews ran no High Tech volume at the close.
DIG
29.5%
IRV
22.6%
CHE
15.1%
GAR
11.4%
BAL
7.5%
JAS
7.1%
FER
4.2%
ERI
1.8%
HAR
0.8%

The Records These
Teams Set

The records these teams set — and a few moments only the data noticed.

$3.15
Lowest Labor Cost
Digby took labor cost per unit from the $14.41 every team started at down to a $3.15 labor cost, with automation set to a class-high 6.5
130
Top Productivity Index
Chester, Digby and Irving each ran their plants at the class's highest productivity index
$5.14
Lowest Material Cost
Ferris drove material cost per unit from $16.17 to $5.14, the lowest in the class
$18.50M
Biggest HR Investment
Irving put more into training, recruiting and sales compensation than any other team, and closed with zero unsold units and zero emergency loans
0 unsold
Sold Every Unit
Andrews, Baldwin, Harper and Irving each closed the run with zero inventory across their entire product lines
$9.51
First Off the Floor
Garrett's stock left the $1.00 floor in Round 2, a full round before any other team, and never returned to it
$4.04M
Round 3 Breakout
Erie's Round 3 profit came with the fourth-highest stock in the class that round, $7.33, and the run closed with a $2.21M Round 8 profit
$1.49
Paid a Dividend
Jasper paid a dividend of $1.49 per share, one of only two teams to return cash to shareholders at the close, alongside Chester, after five straight profitable rounds

Debates These Teams
Will Keep Having

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

The five heaviest Advanced Operations spenders finished first through fifth on profit. Did the modules pay, or did profit pay for the modules?

Digby, Chester, Ferris, Irving and Garrett each spent between $45.20M and $48.90M on Advanced Operations, and they hold the top five spots on cumulative profit. The three teams that spent least, Harper at $8.70M, Andrews at $16.00M and Erie at $16.20M, are the three that closed at the $1.00 stock floor. Was the spend the engine, or did the teams already earning have the cash to keep spending, round after round?

Digby automated two lines to 10.0 and got labor to $3.15 a unit. Chester automated one line to 6.5 and got labor to $5.74. Is automation a plant-wide decision or a line-by-line one?

Every team started at $14.41 of labor per unit, with every line's automation at 3.0. Digby set its two Low Tech lines, Daze and Deft, to 10.0 and its High Tech lines, Dino and Duck, at 3.0, and finished at $3.15 of labor per unit. Chester set Cake, which made most of its units, to 6.5, left Cone at 1.0, and reached a $5.74 labor cost alongside a class-high 130 productivity index and the second-biggest HR investment in the class. Erie and Baldwin averaged 3.0 across their lines and paid $17.10 and $12.70 in labor per unit. Where does automation pay: across the plant, or on the lines that carry the volume?

Erie ran its plant at 183% utilization and Irving ran at 71%. Which one had the capacity problem?

Erie's mean plant utilization of 183% was the highest in the class, and its labor cost per unit finished at $17.10, the highest too. Irving's plants ran at 71%, the second-lowest in the class, and it finished third on cumulative profit with zero unsold units and $4.71 labor. Utilization above 100% looks like demand you have won; it can also be capacity you did not build. When is a busy plant a good sign?