Leidos holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. CACI International still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, CACI International carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Leidos's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Leidos, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Most of the visible separation comes from profitability. The overall score gap is 26 points in favour of Leidos Holdings, Inc..
Both operate in: Information Technology Services
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CACI and LDOS share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how CACI International and Leidos each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Leidos Holdings, Inc. looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 8.8-point ROIC advantage.
On the market side, CACI International carries the stronger trend while Leidos's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CACI vs LDOS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CACI and LDOS 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.
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.