C.H. Robinson Worldwide holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. PACCAR still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. 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.
This is not just a one-metric split: both profitability and growth materially support the lead. The overall score gap is 17 points in favour of C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc..
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
Most of the shared profile comes through margin consistency and revenue stability.
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.
Structure clearly favours C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., even though current pricing leans the other way.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 12-point ROIC advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for PACCAR, with a forward P/E that is 6 turns lower there.
Profitability settles the comparison, while pricing and valuation keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the CHRW vs PCAR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CHRW and PCAR 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.