US Foods holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and stability adding further support. Performance Food Company does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. On the market side, US Foods is in better shape — its trend is intact while Performance Food Company's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — US Foods's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest separation starts in profitability, but stability adds another real layer to the result. US Foods Holding Corp. leads by 16 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Food Distribution
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. PFGC and USFD share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Performance Food Company and US Foods each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
US Foods Holding Corp. looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 4.3-point ROIC advantage.
Stability adds another layer of support rather than leaving the result tied to profitability alone.
Profitability is the clearest driver, and stability also supports US Foods Holding Corp.'s broader structural position.
Break down the PFGC vs USFD comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how PFGC and USFD 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.