Jones Lang LaSalle holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and growth adding further support. Humana still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Humana carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Jones Lang LaSalle's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Jones Lang LaSalle, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
The clearest separation starts in valuation, but growth adds another real layer to the result. The overall score gap is 10 points in favour of Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and margin consistency.
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.
The two profiles are relatively close, but the price setup still leans toward Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where HUM and JLL each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 8.8 turns lower.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 9.7-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
Valuation is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though profitability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the HUM vs JLL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how HUM and JLL 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.