The structural profiles are close, with Hilton Worldwide carrying a narrow edge on profitability. Rollins still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Hilton Worldwide is in better shape — its trend is intact while Rollins's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Hilton Worldwide's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Profitability is the clearest driver, while growth keeps the result from looking one-way.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
The match is driven mainly by revenue growth trajectory and investment intensity.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup is mixed: neither company clearly combines the stronger profile with the more supportive price setup.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 29-point operating margin advantage.
Earnings growth also leans the other way, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
Profitability points more clearly to Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., but growth and current pricing keep the broader result mixed.
Break down the HLT vs ROL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how HLT and ROL 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.