C. H. Robinson Worldwide vs Radiant Logistics
CHRW and RLGT 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 RLGT compare
C. H. Robinson Worldwide is the larger company, worth 34 times as much as Radiant Logistics ($14.6B against $426M).
On earnings, C. H. Robinson Worldwide is cheaper: it trades at 22.4× trailing earnings, against 23.3× for Radiant Logistics.
C. H. Robinson Worldwide grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.4% versus 3.5% for Radiant Logistics).
C. H. Robinson Worldwide keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.7% compared with 2.0% at Radiant Logistics.
C. H. Robinson Worldwide pays a dividend yielding 2.0%; Radiant Logistics does not pay one.
C. H. Robinson Worldwide scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 12 for Radiant Logistics), 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 | RLGT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.6B | $426M |
| Share price | $124.61 | $9.08 |
| Change, 1 year | −3.7% | 51.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 32.8% | 25.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.67 | 0.93 |
| Employees | 12K | 1,107 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.4× (better) | 23.3× |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 9.2× | 1.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.5× | 13.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 28.0× (better) | 32.3× |
| FCF yield | 3.6% (better) | 3.1% |
| Fair value | $112.08 | $7.87 |
| Margin of safety | −11.2% (better) | −15.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.4% (better) | 3.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.03% | 0.76% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 11.5% (better) | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 13.0% (better) | 11.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 5.4% (better) | −2.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 4.9% (better) | 2.6% |
| Net margin | 3.7% (better) | 2.0% |
| FCF margin | 2.9% (better) | 1.4% |
| Return on equity | 38.9% (better) | 8.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 23.4% (better) | 8.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.18 | 0.10 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.71 (better) | −0.02 |
| Interest coverage | – | 10.6× |
| Current ratio | 1.34 | 1.60 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 6.72 (better) | 4.30 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% | – |
| Payout ratio | 45.4% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | 5.2% (better) | 0.82% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.2% (better) | 0.82% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 106% | 55.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.72% | 17.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$18.4M | −$829K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.7% | 1.7% |
Go deeper
- CHRW stock overview
- CHRW income statement
- CHRW valuation and score
- RLGT stock overview
- RLGT income statement
- RLGT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.