C.H. Robinson Worldwide holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and stability. In the market, Kuehne + Nagel International carries the stronger setup — intact trend against C.H. Robinson Worldwide's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with C.H. Robinson Worldwide, but the market is not currently confirming it.
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, KNIN.SW: STOXX 600).
The clearest separation starts in growth, but stability adds another real layer to the result. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. leads by 14 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Integrated Freight & Logistics
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CHRW and KNIN.SW share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how C.H. Robinson Worldwide and KNIN.SW each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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 both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CHRW and KNIN.SW each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
On the market side, Kuehne + Nagel International carries the stronger trend while C.H. Robinson Worldwide's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The lead is built on both growth and stability, making it broader than a single-dimension result.
Break down the CHRW vs KNIN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CHRW and KNIN.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.