The structural profiles are close, with Andritz carrying a narrow edge on profitability. C.H. Robinson Worldwide still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Andritz is in better shape — its trend is intact while C.H. Robinson Worldwide's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Andritz's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (ANDR.VI: STOXX 600, CHRW: Russell 1000).
The clearest score difference appears in profitability, while growth still leans the other way.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in margin consistency and investment intensity.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ANDR.VI and CHRW each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 6.4-point ROIC advantage.
Growth still tilts materially toward C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., which stops the result from looking dominant across the whole profile.
The lead is built on both profitability and growth — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the ANDR.VI vs CHRW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ANDR.VI and CHRW each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
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.