Expeditors International of Washington holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and stability. Rubis still leads on growth and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is mixed, without a decisive signal in either direction. 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 stability materially support the lead. The overall score gap is 10 points in favour of Expeditors International of Washington, Inc..
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
The strongest overlap appears in margin consistency and revenue stability.
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.
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. looks stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for Rubis.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 39-point ROIC advantage.
Rubis still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
The lead is built on both profitability and stability — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the EXPD vs RUI.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how EXPD and RUI.PA 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.