The structural profiles are close, with Humana carrying a narrow edge on profitability. CBRE still leads on growth and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Humana is in better shape — its trend is intact while CBRE's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Humana's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the S&P 500 universe, making them directly comparable.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in profitability.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
The match is driven mainly by investment intensity and margin consistency.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
CBRE Group, Inc. and Humana Inc. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward CBRE Group, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CBRE and HUM 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 12.4-point ROIC advantage.
Earnings growth also leans toward CBRE, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
The main read on profitability is clearer than the broader score gap.
Break down the CBRE vs HUM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CBRE and HUM 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.