The structural profiles are close, with C.H. Robinson Worldwide carrying a narrow edge on stability. Georg Fischer still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, C.H. Robinson Worldwide is in better shape — its trend is intact while Georg Fischer's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — C.H. Robinson Worldwide's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (CHRW: Russell 1000, GF.SW: STOXX 600).
The clearest separation starts in stability, but growth adds another real layer to the result.
These two companies are linked by measured 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 revenue growth trajectory.
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.
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. looks stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for Georg Fischer AG.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CHRW and GF.SW each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Georg Fischer, with a forward P/E that is 8.3 turns lower there.
The lead is built on both stability and growth — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the CHRW vs GF.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CHRW and GF.SW 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.