The structural profiles are close, with Expeditors International of Washington carrying a narrow edge on growth. C.H. Robinson Worldwide still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is mixed, without a decisive signal in either direction. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Growth points more clearly toward C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., even if the broader score still leans toward Expeditors International of Washington, Inc..
Both operate in: Integrated Freight & Logistics
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CHRW and EXPD share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how C.H. Robinson Worldwide and EXPD each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup splits cleanly: structure favours C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., while the price setup favours Expeditors International of Washington, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
There is still a strong counterforce in stability, so the lead stays clear without becoming a sweep.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CHRW vs EXPD comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CHRW 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.