The structural profiles are close, with C.H. Robinson Worldwide carrying a narrow edge on growth. PACCAR still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, PACCAR 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. Both peer scores are relative to the S&P 500 universe, making them directly comparable.
Growth still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison.
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.
The match is driven mainly by margin trend and investment intensity.
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 stays mixed because structure and the price setup do not align cleanly in one direction.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CHRW and PCAR each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The main growth separation is wide, driven by a meaningfully stronger expansion profile.
Stability still leans toward PACCAR Inc, so the lead is real without reading as one-way.
The page question resolves through growth, but stability and current pricing still keep the broader comparison from reading as 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.
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.