QXO holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and valuation. Arm still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Arm carries the stronger setup — intact trend against QXO's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with QXO, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (ARM: Nasdaq 100, QXO: Russell 1000).
On profitability, the clearer edge sits with Arm Holdings plc, while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and margin trend.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
QXO, Inc. and Arm Holdings plc look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward QXO, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
The profitability gap is very wide, with the stronger side earning materially better operating marks.
Arm Holdings plc still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
The lead is built on both profitability and valuation — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the ARM vs QXO comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ARM and QXO 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.