US Foods holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and profitability. The market setup is currently leaning toward Performance Food Company, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with US Foods, 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 profitability adds another real layer to the result. The overall score gap is 11 points in favour of US Foods Holding Corp..
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.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Performance Food Group Company.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where PFGC and USFD 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 trailing P/E that is 18 turns lower.
Performance Food Group Company still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
The lead is built on both valuation and profitability, making it broader than a single-dimension result.
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.
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.