PACCAR holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Oshkosh still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Oshkosh carries the stronger setup — intact trend against PACCAR's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with PACCAR, 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 comparison is mainly decided in stability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. The overall score gap is 11 points in favour of PACCAR Inc.
Both operate in: Farm & Heavy Construction Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. OSK and PCAR share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Oshkosh and PACCAR 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 stability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
PACCAR Inc occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Oshkosh Corporation still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Oshkosh, with a forward P/E that is 4.3 turns lower there.
The stability edge is decisive, even though current pricing and valuation still lean somewhat toward Oshkosh Corporation.
Break down the OSK vs PCAR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how OSK and PCAR 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.