C. H. Robinson Worldwide vs Hub
CHRW and HUBG side by side, both in transportation services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CHRW and HUBG compare
C. H. Robinson Worldwide is the larger company, worth 9023 times as much as Hub ($14.6B against $1.6M).
C. H. Robinson Worldwide grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.4% versus −5.8% for Hub).
C. H. Robinson Worldwide keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.7% compared with 2.8% at Hub.
Both pay dividends: C. H. Robinson Worldwide yields 2.0% and Hub 1.9%.
C. H. Robinson Worldwide scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 13 for Hub), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CHRW | HUBG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.6B | $1.6M |
| Share price | $124.61 | $26.71 |
| Change, 1 year | −3.7% | −25.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 32.8% | −35.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.67 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 12K | 6,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.4× | – |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.0× (better) |
| P/B | 9.2× | 0.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.5× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 28.0× | 0.0× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.6% | 7029% (better) |
| Fair value | $112.08 | $31092.10 |
| Margin of safety | −11.2% | 99.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.4% (better) | −5.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.03% | 1.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 11.5% (better) | −3.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 13.0% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 5.4% (better) | 1.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 4.9% (better) | 3.8% |
| Net margin | 3.7% (better) | 2.8% |
| FCF margin | 2.9% | 3.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 38.9% (better) | 6.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 23.4% (better) | 6.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.18 | 0.15 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.71 | 0.45 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 11.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.34 | 1.47 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 6.72 (better) | 2.56 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% (better) | 1.9% |
| Payout ratio | 45.4% | 28.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | 5.2% | 856% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.2% | 858% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 106% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 0.72% | 4.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$18.4M | −$1.2M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.7% | 7.5% |
Go deeper
- CHRW stock overview
- CHRW income statement
- CHRW valuation and score
- HUBG stock overview
- HUBG income statement
- HUBG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.