Expeditors International of Washington holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Persimmon still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Expeditors International of Washington is in better shape — its trend is intact while Persimmon's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Expeditors International of Washington's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (EXPD: S&P 500, PSN.L: STOXX 600).
The result is anchored in stability, but profitability also reinforces the same direction. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. leads by 8 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
The match is driven mainly by investment intensity and operating margin level.
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 Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., even though current pricing leans the other way.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Persimmon, with a forward P/E that is 14.1 turns lower there.
Stability settles the comparison, while pricing and valuation keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the EXPD vs PSN.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how EXPD and PSN.L 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.