Old Dominion Freight Line holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and valuation. James Hardie Industries still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Old Dominion Freight Line holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Old Dominion Freight Line's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Profitability remains the main source of distance in the comparison. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. leads by 15 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
Most of the shared profile comes through revenue stability and investment intensity.
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.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against James Hardie Industries plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 8.6-point operating margin advantage.
James Hardie Industries still pushes back on growth, with a 36-point revenue-growth advantage that keeps the read from becoming one-way.
The lead is built on both profitability and valuation — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the JHX vs ODFL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how JHX and ODFL 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.