QXO holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Astera Labs still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Astera Labs 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. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
The comparison is mainly decided in valuation, while profitability remains the main counterforce.
This comparison is anchored in 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.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in capital structure and revenue growth trajectory.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Astera Labs, Inc. is stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for QXO, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 29 turns lower.
Profitability still favours Astera Labs, with a 24-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
Valuation settles the comparison, while pricing and profitability keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the ALAB vs QXO comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ALAB 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.