Brinks vs C. H. Robinson Worldwide
BCO and CHRW side by side, both in transportation services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BCO and CHRW compare
C. H. Robinson Worldwide is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Brinks ($14.6B against $4.2B).
On earnings, C. H. Robinson Worldwide is cheaper: it trades at 22.4× trailing earnings, against 23.7× for Brinks.
C. H. Robinson Worldwide grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.4% versus 8.1% for Brinks).
C. H. Robinson Worldwide keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.7% compared with 3.3% at Brinks.
Both pay dividends: Brinks yields 0.99% and C. H. Robinson Worldwide 2.0%.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | BCO | CHRW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.2B | $14.6B |
| Share price | $102.71 | $124.61 |
| Change, 1 year | −8.9% | −3.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 45.8% | 32.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.83 | 0.67 |
| Employees | 65K | 12K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 | 17 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 | 6 |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.7× | 22.4× (better) |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 0.8× |
| P/B | 13.6× | 9.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.8× (better) | 16.5× |
| P/FCF | 10.7× (better) | 28.0× |
| PEG | 2.49 | – |
| FCF yield | 9.3% (better) | 3.6% |
| Fair value | $126.34 | $112.08 |
| Margin of safety | 18.7% (better) | −11.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.1% | 10.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.3% (better) | 0.03% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 11.2% | 11.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 16.1% (better) | 13.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 72.2% (better) | 5.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 26.4% | – |
| Operating margin | 10.5% (better) | 4.9% |
| Net margin | 3.3% | 3.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.2% (better) | 2.9% |
| Return on equity | 64.0% (better) | 38.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 12.7% | 23.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 13.66 | 1.18 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.89 | 1.71 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.3× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.62 (better) | 1.34 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.64 | 6.72 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.99% | 2.0% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 23.3% | 45.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 10.9% (better) | 4.1% |
| Buyback yield | 2.6% | 5.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.6% | 7.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 110% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 0.72% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$169K (better) | −$18.4M |
| Short interest, % of float | 13.1% | 4.7% |
Go deeper
- BCO stock overview
- BCO income statement
- BCO valuation and score
- CHRW stock overview
- CHRW income statement
- CHRW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.