Berkshire Hathaway Inc. ranks near the peer group median, with strong growth and valuation offset by weak profitability. Trend conditions have deteriorated, without yet reaching an extreme downside state. Recent price action is broadly in line with the structural positioning.
Peer-relative scores, weakest to strongest
Berkshire Hathaway is a diversified holding company with major operations in insurance, utilities, railroads, manufacturing, and retail. Its scale and conglomerate structure make it a bellwether for U.S. industrial and financial trends.
A forward P/E of 21.8x versus the peer median of 25.1x indicates Berkshire Hathaway is priced below peers, but the persistent capital efficiency and growth deficit—anchored by a near-zero ROIC (0.01%) and negative revenue growth (-0.7% YoY)—maintains this valuation gap. The core issue is not simply valuation: weaknesses in capital returns and organic expansion continue to affect the company’s fundamental quality.
Internally, the evidence is clear. Berkshire’s Quality score sits at just 27/100, in the bottom quartile among peers and stable over time, while its Growth score of 26/100 is well below the sector median. Although net income remains robust at €67.0bn, this absolute profit strength does not translate into higher quality metrics or improved capital efficiency. The operating margin of 33% is solid, but does not offset the failure to convert profitability into stronger returns on invested capital or renewed growth momentum.
Recent external context reinforces this assessment. The Q4 2025 EPS miss ($4.73 vs. $5.19 consensus) and revenue shortfall ($94.23bn vs. expectations) highlight ongoing operational weaknesses compared to peers who met or exceeded estimates. The unresolved PacifiCorp wildfire litigation risk introduces a legal overhang that could lead to further losses, a burden not shared by most peers. Additionally, Berkshire’s slower pace in adopting AI for operational efficiency may limit its ability to close the gap with more tech-forward competitors.
Relative to its peer set, Berkshire’s weak ROIC and negative growth are more severe than many peers, placing it at the sharper end of underperformance. Some of these issues are partly idiosyncratic—rooted in the company’s conglomerate structure and exposure to regulated utilities—but the valuation gap is supported by persistent underperformance in quality metrics rather than temporary volatility or sentiment swings.
Improvement would require ROIC to rise sustainably above the peer median and a return to positive revenue growth versus peers. Resolution of the PacifiCorp litigation risk would also support a more positive outlook. Until then, Berkshire Hathaway remains structurally challenged and its valuation gap reflects persistent quality deficits.
Break down BRK-B's position across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
This analysis is rule-based and descriptive. Peer-relative scores are derived from functional peer group comparisons using publicly available financial data. Scores reflect structural positioning only and do not constitute investment advice, a buy or sell recommendation, or a forecast of future performance. AssetNext peer scores are recalculated periodically as new data becomes available.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.