CHRW vs SPIR

For growth investors, C.

H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) is the stronger pick with -8. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -35. 2% for Spire Global, Inc. (SPIR). Spire Global, Inc. (SPIR) offers the better valuation at 11. 4x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Spire Global, Inc. (SPIR) a "Buy" — based on 12 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, Spire Global, Inc.

(SPIR) is the cheapest at 11. 4x versus C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. at 34. 9x.

Over the past 5 years, C.

H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) delivered a total return of +84. 1%, compared to -76. 9% for Spire Global, Inc. (SPIR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CHRW returned +160. 9% versus SPIR's -75. 9%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), C.

H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 95β versus Spire Global, Inc. 's 2. 93β — meaning SPIR is approximately 208% more volatile than CHRW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Spire Global, Inc. (SPIR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 8% versus 88% for C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), C.

H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) is pulling ahead at -8. 4% versus -35. 2% for Spire Global, Inc. (SPIR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Spire Global, Inc. grew EPS 137. 8% year-over-year, compared to 25. 1% for C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, SPIR leads at 0. 4% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Spire Global, Inc.

(SPIR) is the more profitable company, earning 71. 7% net margin versus 3. 6% for C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. — meaning it keeps 71. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CHRW leads at 4. 9% versus -121. 4% for SPIR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SPIR leads at 40. 8%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CHRW: 11.

1% to $187. 38.

In this comparison, CHRW (1.

5% yield) pays a dividend. SPIR does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, C.

H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 95), 1. 5% yield, +160. 9% 10Y return). Spire Global, Inc. (SPIR) carries a higher beta of 2. 93 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CHRW: +160. 9%, SPIR: -75. 9%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: CHRW is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; SPIR is a large-cap deep-value stock. CHRW pays a dividend while SPIR does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.