United Parcel Service holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. C.H. Robinson Worldwide still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, C.H. Robinson Worldwide carries the stronger setup — intact trend against United Parcel Service's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with United Parcel Service, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
On stability, the clearer edge sits with C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
Both operate in: Integrated Freight & Logistics
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CHRW and UPS share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how C.H. Robinson Worldwide and United Parcel Service 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.
United Parcel Service, Inc. and C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward United Parcel Service, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
On the market side, C.H. Robinson Worldwide carries the stronger trend while United Parcel Service's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CHRW vs UPS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CHRW and UPS 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.