United Parcel Service holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and valuation. J.B. Hunt Transport Services still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, J.B. Hunt Transport Services carries the stronger setup — intact trend against United Parcel Service's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with United Parcel Service, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
On growth, the clearer edge sits with J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
Both operate in: Integrated Freight & Logistics
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. JBHT and UPS share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how JBHT and United Parcel Service each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. looks stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for United Parcel Service, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
On the market side, J.B. Hunt Transport Services carries the stronger trend while United Parcel Service's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The lead is built on both growth and valuation — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the JBHT vs UPS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how JBHT and UPS 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.