Input costs were the office small talk of earnings season, though hardly a corporate stampede. Raw-material and input costs appeared in filings from 21.0% of companies in the latest window, up from 17.8% in the same-length window one quarter earlier.
That is a 1.18x quarter-over-quarter increase in share. In plain English, the topic became a bit more common, not universal. The current window included 207 distinct companies flagging it, compared with 215 in the prior window. Share matters here because it controls for the number of companies that happened to file.
The language also cuts in more than one direction. Middleby tied input costs to a lower gross margin rate, alongside tariffs and product mix.
"The gross margin rate was 38.3% in the three month period ended July 4, 2026, as compared to 39.7% in the prior year period, primarily impacted by tariffs, input cost inflation and product mix."
The Middleby Corporation / 10-Q / 2026-08-13
For Middleby, the filing puts input cost inflation in a list of specific reasons its margin rate was lower than a year ago. It is a cost pressure, but not a standalone explanation.
Kennametal offered the more favorable version of the same conversation. Its gross profit benefited from the timing of raw-material pricing relative to costs, plus other pricing and operating factors.
"The increase in gross profit was driven by the favorable timing of raw material-related pricing compared to costs of approximately $316 million, non-raw material-related pricing and tariff surcharges in Metal Cutting, higher sales and production volumes and incremental year-over-year restructuring savings."
Kennametal Inc. / 10-K / 2026-08-12
The important word is “timing.” Kennametal said pricing arrived favorably compared with raw-material costs, making the input-cost discussion a source of support in this period rather than a drag.
Helios Technologies described a similar tug of war. Higher volume helped fixed-cost leverage, while materials, freight, utilities, labor and tariffs pushed the other way.
"Gross margin increased by 280 basis points primarily due to higher fixed costs leverage on higher volume and net tariff impacts partially offset by higher material, freight, and utilities costs as well as higher direct labor costs as a percentage of sales."
Helios Technologies, Inc. / 10-Q / 2026-08-11
That is less a single-cost story than a margin bridge with several moving parts. Material costs showed up, but higher volume did too.
USA Rare Earth was blunter about the raw-material line itself.
"The Q2’2026 deterioration was driven by higher raw material costs which increased substantially in Q2’2026 over Q1’2026; however, selling price increases partially offset this cost inflation."
USA Rare Earth, Inc. / 10-Q / 2026-08-10
Here, the filing describes a quarter-over-quarter increase in raw-material costs and a partial pricing response. The company’s own sentence contains both the pressure and the offset.
Monster Beverage supplied the consumer version: pricing actions and product mix lifted gross profit as a percentage of sales, but higher aluminum-can and freight costs took some of that benefit back.
"The increase in gross profit as a percentage of net sales for the three-months ended June 30, 2026 was primarily the result of the Pricing Actions and product sales mix, partially offset by increased aluminum can costs, geographical sales mix and increased freight-in costs."
Monster Beverage Corporation / 10-Q / 2026-08-07
Across unrelated businesses, management reached for the same subject a little more often this quarter. The receipts range from inflation cutting margins, to pricing arriving at the right time, to volume absorbing costs, to aluminum and freight taking a bite. The pattern is broader discussion, not a single industry verdict.
This is a descriptive reading of SEC filings via jodie’s analytics, not investment advice.