United Parcel Service leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Deutsche Post does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. In the market, Deutsche Post 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.
Profitability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. United Parcel Service, Inc. leads by 20 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Integrated Freight & Logistics
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. DHL.DE and UPS share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Deutsche Post 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.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
United Parcel Service, Inc. looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 7.6-point ROIC advantage.
Deutsche Post AG still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Profitability is the clearest single gap, but the broader lead is not limited to that alone.
Break down the DHL.DE vs UPS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how DHL.DE 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.