C.H. Robinson vs United Parcel Service
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put C.H. Robinson and United Parcel Service side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- United Parcel Service is the larger business, with $88.7B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $16.2B for C.H. Robinson, about 5.5 times as much.
- United Parcel Service grew revenue faster (−2.7%, against −8.4%).
- United Parcel Service kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (8.9% operating margin, against 4.9%).
- C.H. Robinson earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (22.6%, against 18.4%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of C.H. Robinson’s earnings: a P/E of 26.9x against 18.8x for United Parcel Service.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 10 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
C.H. Robinson
CHRW
4/10
FCF marginReturn on capitalPiotroski F-scoreNet debt / EBITDA
United Parcel Service
UPS
6/10
Revenue growth5-year growthOperating marginNet marginReturn on equityShare count change
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | CHRW FY25 | UPS FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $16.9B | $86.0B |
| Revenue | $16.2B | $88.7B |
| Free cash flow | $895M | $4.8B |
| Net income | $587M | $5.6B |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | −8.4% | −2.7% |
| 5-year growth | 0.0% | 0.9% |
| Share count change | 0.7% | −0.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | — | — |
| Operating margin | 4.9% | 8.9% |
| Net margin | 3.6% | 6.3% |
| FCF margin | 5.5% | 5.4% |
| Return on capital | 22.6% | 18.4% |
| Return on equity | 32.9% | 33.8% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $929M | $18.5B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.0x | 1.7x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $656M | $6.4B |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 26.9x | 18.8x |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 5 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.