CDW leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Littelfuse still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Littelfuse carries the stronger setup — intact trend against CDW's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with CDW, 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.
Profitability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The overall score gap is 13 points in favour of CDW Corporation.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
The strongest overlap appears in revenue growth trajectory and investment intensity.
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.
CDW Corporation looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
Where CDW and LFUS 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 13.4-point ROIC advantage.
On the market side, Littelfuse carries the stronger trend while CDW's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The profitability lead is decisive, but stability still runs counter to it — the result is clear, not entirely one-sided.
Break down the CDW vs LFUS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CDW and LFUS 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.