C. H. Robinson Worldwide vs XPO
CHRW and XPO 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 XPO compare
XPO is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as C. H. Robinson Worldwide ($21.4B against $14.6B).
On earnings, C. H. Robinson Worldwide is cheaper: it trades at 22.4× trailing earnings, against 43.1× for XPO.
C. H. Robinson Worldwide grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.4% versus 9.5% for XPO).
XPO keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.7% compared with 3.7% at C. H. Robinson Worldwide.
C. H. Robinson Worldwide pays a dividend yielding 2.0%; XPO does not pay one.
C. H. Robinson Worldwide scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 11 for XPO), 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 | XPO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.6B | $21.4B |
| Share price | $124.61 | $183.01 |
| Change, 1 year | −3.7% | 48.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 32.8% | 133% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.67 | 1.63 |
| Employees | 12K | 37K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 6 | 6 |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.4× (better) | 43.1× |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 2.4× |
| P/B | 9.2× (better) | 10.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.5× (better) | 17.8× |
| P/FCF | 28.0× (better) | 32.6× |
| FCF yield | 3.6% (better) | 3.1% |
| Fair value | $112.08 | $138.31 |
| Margin of safety | −11.2% (better) | −32.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.4% (better) | 9.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.03% | 5.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 11.5% | 51.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 13.0% | 52.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 5.4% | 24.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 4.9% | 9.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 3.7% | 5.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.9% | 7.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | 38.9% (better) | 26.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 23.4% (better) | 13.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.18 (better) | 1.52 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.71 (better) | 2.02 |
| Interest coverage | – | 4.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.34 (better) | 0.99 |
| Altman Z-score | 6.72 (better) | 3.66 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| 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) | 1.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.2% (better) | 1.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 106% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 0.72% | 3.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$18.4M | −$2.1M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.7% | 6.2% |
Go deeper
- CHRW stock overview
- CHRW income statement
- CHRW valuation and score
- XPO stock overview
- XPO income statement
- XPO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.