Expeditors International of Washington holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and stability. Carlisle Companies still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Expeditors International of Washington holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Expeditors International of Washington's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The lead is spread across profitability and stability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. The overall score gap is 13 points in favour of Expeditors International of Washington, Inc..
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 strongest overlap appears 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.
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. is cheaper, but Carlisle Companies Incorporated is still stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 27-point ROIC advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Carlisle Companies, with a forward P/E that is 8.4 turns lower there.
The lead is built on both profitability and stability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the CSL vs EXPD comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CSL and EXPD 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.