Jones Lang LaSalle holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and profitability adding further support. CBRE still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Jones Lang LaSalle holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Jones Lang LaSalle's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
This is not just a one-metric split: both valuation and profitability materially support the lead. The overall score gap is 17 points in favour of Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated.
Both operate in: Real Estate Services
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CBRE and JLL share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how CBRE and Jones Lang LaSalle each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated still looks stronger, and the price setup does not materially undermine that lead.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 3.8 turns lower.
Stability still leans toward CBRE Group, Inc., so the lead is real without reading as one-way.
Valuation is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CBRE vs JLL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CBRE and JLL 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.