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 3.2 times as much as Brinks ($15.5B against $4.8B).
On earnings, C. H. Robinson Worldwide is cheaper: it trades at 24.0× trailing earnings, against 30.6× for Brinks.
C. H. Robinson Worldwide grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.4% versus 7.3% for Brinks).
C. H. Robinson Worldwide keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.7% compared with 2.9% at Brinks.
Both pay dividends: Brinks yields 0.65% and C. H. Robinson Worldwide 1.9%.
C. H. Robinson Worldwide scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 14 for Brinks), 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 | BCO | CHRW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.8B | $15.5B |
| Share price | $116.80 | $133.76 |
| Change, 1 year | 2.7% | −11.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 75.8% | 38.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.82 | 0.70 |
| Employees | 65K | 12K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 30.6× | 24.0× (better) |
| P/S | 0.9× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 16.1× | 9.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.6× (better) | 17.5× |
| P/FCF | 13.1× (better) | 29.8× |
| PEG | 3.21 | – |
| FCF yield | 7.7% (better) | 3.4% |
| Fair value | $118.98 | $110.15 |
| Margin of safety | 1.8% (better) | −21.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.3% | 10.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.3% (better) | 0.03% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −6.5% | 11.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −3.0% | 13.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 72.2% (better) | 5.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 26.1% | – |
| Operating margin | 10.0% (better) | 4.9% |
| Net margin | 2.9% | 3.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 6.7% (better) | 2.9% |
| Return on equity | 56.0% (better) | 38.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 12.9% | 23.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 13.88 | 1.18 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.97 | 1.71 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.55 (better) | 1.34 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.71 | 6.84 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.65% | 1.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 26.5% | 45.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 10.9% (better) | 4.1% |
| Buyback yield | 1.8% | 4.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.4% | 6.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 110% | 107% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 0.73% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$169K (better) | −$3.7M |
| Short interest, % of float | 13.2% | 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.