Integrated Freight & Logistics
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
CRGO vs SHIP vs ZIM vs DAC vs MATX
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Marine Shipping
Marine Shipping
Marine Shipping
Marine Shipping
CRGO vs SHIP vs ZIM vs DAC vs MATX — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Integrated Freight & Logistics | Marine Shipping | Marine Shipping | Marine Shipping | Marine Shipping |
| Market Cap | $105M | $342M | $3.15B | $2.42B | $5.48B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $29M | $153M | $6.90B | $1.04B | $3.32B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-18M | $15M | $479M | $495M | $429M |
| Gross Margin | 66.8% | 45.4% | 16.8% | 60.1% | 18.4% |
| Operating Margin | -65.0% | 23.4% | 12.3% | 47.8% | 13.6% |
| Forward P/E | — | 6.9x | 6.6x | 5.3x | 13.4x |
| Total Debt | $4M | $290M | $5.74B | $1.16B | $727M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $16M | $63M | $1.05B | $1.04B | $142M |
CRGO vs SHIP vs ZIM vs DAC vs MATX — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Freightos Limited O… (CRGO) | 100 | 20.9 | -79.1% |
| Seanergy Maritime H… (SHIP) | 100 | 172.4 | +72.4% |
| ZIM Integrated Ship… (ZIM) | 100 | 47.2 | -52.8% |
| Danaos Corporation (DAC) | 100 | 192.5 | +92.5% |
| Matson, Inc. (MATX) | 100 | 220.8 | +120.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CRGO vs SHIP vs ZIM vs DAC vs MATX
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CRGO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 23.9%, EPS growth 23.9%, 3Y rev CAGR 15.6%
- 23.9% revenue growth vs ZIM's -18.1%
SHIP ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +207.0% vs CRGO's -2.4%
ZIM is the clearest fit if your priority is dividends.
- 16.4% yield, vs MATX's 0.8%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
DAC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 0.62, yield 2.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.62, Low D/E 30.4%, current ratio 3.28x
- PEG 0.11 vs MATX's 0.52
- Beta 0.62, yield 2.6%, current ratio 3.28x
MATX is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 476.1% 10Y total return vs ZIM's 5.5%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 23.9% revenue growth vs ZIM's -18.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (5.3x vs 13.4x), PEG 0.11 vs 0.52 | |
| Quality / Margins | 47.4% margin vs CRGO's -59.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.62 vs CRGO's 1.98 | |
| Dividends | 16.4% yield, vs MATX's 0.8%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +207.0% vs CRGO's -2.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 9.7% ROA vs CRGO's -27.9%, ROIC 9.8% vs -37.5% |
CRGO vs SHIP vs ZIM vs DAC vs MATX — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
CRGO vs SHIP vs ZIM vs DAC vs MATX — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
DAC leads in 3 of 6 categories
MATX leads 1 • SHIP leads 1 • CRGO leads 0 • ZIM leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
DAC leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ZIM is the larger business by revenue, generating $6.9B annually — 234.4x CRGO's $29M. DAC is the more profitable business, keeping 47.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CRGO's -59.5%. On growth, SHIP holds the edge at +18.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $29M | $153M | $6.9B | $1.0B | $3.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$16M | $68M | $2.1B | $695M | $644M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$18M | $15M | $479M | $495M | $429M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$10M | -$6M | $2.0B | $341M | $418M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +66.8% | +45.4% | +16.8% | +60.1% | +18.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -65.0% | +23.4% | +12.3% | +47.8% | +13.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -59.5% | +9.7% | +6.9% | +47.4% | +12.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -32.4% | -4.2% | +29.0% | +32.7% | +12.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +12.4% | +18.6% | -31.5% | +3.1% | -3.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +63.1% | +84.4% | -93.1% | +37.8% | -15.1% |
Valuation Metrics
DAC leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.9x trailing earnings, DAC trades at a 69% valuation discount to SHIP's 16.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), DAC offers better value at 0.11x vs MATX's 0.51x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $105M | $342M | $3.1B | $2.4B | $5.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $93M | $570M | $7.8B | $2.5B | $6.1B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -5.86x | 16.05x | 6.56x | 4.94x | 12.98x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 6.93x | — | 5.26x | 13.40x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 0.11x | 0.51x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 7.38x | 3.68x | 3.59x | 7.61x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.57x | 2.16x | 0.46x | 2.32x | 1.64x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.42x | 1.18x | 0.78x | 0.64x | 2.03x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 20.11x | 1.96x | 7.51x | 35.63x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MATX leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MATX delivers a 15.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $16 in annual profit, vs $-41 for CRGO. CRGO carries lower financial leverage with a 0.10x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ZIM's 1.43x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MATX scores 5/9 vs SHIP's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -40.8% | +5.3% | +12.0% | +13.0% | +15.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -27.9% | +2.5% | +4.3% | +9.7% | +9.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -37.5% | +6.1% | +7.3% | +9.8% | +10.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -37.4% | +7.1% | +9.6% | +11.2% | +11.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.10x | 1.03x | 1.43x | 0.30x | 0.26x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$12M | $228M | $4.7B | $118M | $585M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $16M | $63M | $1.1B | $1.0B | $142M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $4M | $290M | $5.7B | $1.2B | $727M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -71.01x | 1.68x | 2.02x | 11.62x | 127.63x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
SHIP leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MATX five years ago would be worth $28,098 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,096 for CRGO. Over the past 12 months, SHIP leads with a +207.0% total return vs CRGO's -2.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SHIP at 56.3% vs CRGO's -3.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -8.1% | +79.9% | +23.2% | +39.7% | +46.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -2.4% | +207.0% | +106.6% | +68.0% | +92.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -10.9% | +282.1% | +104.5% | +149.6% | +177.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -79.0% | +65.6% | +88.3% | +124.8% | +181.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -79.0% | -99.7% | +548.1% | +225.9% | +476.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -3.8% | +56.3% | +26.9% | +35.7% | +40.5% |
Risk & Volatility
DAC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
DAC is the less volatile stock with a 0.62 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CRGO's 1.98 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. DAC currently trades 99.6% from its 52-week high vs CRGO's 48.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.98x | 1.21x | 1.33x | 0.62x | 1.76x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $4.24 | $16.77 | $29.97 | $132.70 | $189.28 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.17 | $5.37 | $12.33 | $80.29 | $86.97 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +48.3% | +96.6% | +87.1% | +99.6% | +95.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 56.3 | 62.9 | 61.3 | 74.6 | 64.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 137K | 258K | 1.8M | 83K | 274K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ZIM and MATX each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CRGO as "Buy", SHIP as "Buy", ZIM as "Hold", DAC as "Hold", MATX as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 46.3% upside for CRGO (target: $3) vs -43.3% for ZIM (target: $15). For income investors, ZIM offers the higher dividend yield at 16.39% vs MATX's 0.80%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $3.00 | $17.00 | $14.80 | $105.00 | $190.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 3 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 11 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.9% | +16.4% | +2.6% | +0.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 0 | 4 | 12 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.46 | $4.28 | $3.44 | $1.44 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +3.1% | +5.5% |
DAC leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). MATX leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 1 tied.
CRGO vs SHIP vs ZIM vs DAC vs MATX: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CRGO or SHIP or ZIM or DAC or MATX a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Freightos Limited Ordinary shares (CRGO) is the stronger pick with 23.
9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -18. 1% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (ZIM). Danaos Corporation (DAC) offers the better valuation at 4. 9x trailing P/E (5. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Freightos Limited Ordinary shares (CRGO) a "Buy" — based on 3 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.
02Which has the better valuation — CRGO or SHIP or ZIM or DAC or MATX?
On trailing P/E, Danaos Corporation (DAC) is the cheapest at 4.
9x versus Seanergy Maritime Holdings Corp. at 16. 0x. On forward P/E, Danaos Corporation is actually cheaper at 5. 3x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Danaos Corporation wins at 0. 11x versus Matson, Inc. 's 0. 52x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CRGO or SHIP or ZIM or DAC or MATX?
Over the past 5 years, Matson, Inc.
(MATX) delivered a total return of +181. 0%, compared to -79. 0% for Freightos Limited Ordinary shares (CRGO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ZIM returned +548. 1% versus SHIP's -99. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — CRGO or SHIP or ZIM or DAC or MATX?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Danaos Corporation (DAC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
62β versus Freightos Limited Ordinary shares's 1. 98β — meaning CRGO is approximately 218% more volatile than DAC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Freightos Limited Ordinary shares (CRGO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 10% versus 143% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CRGO or SHIP or ZIM or DAC or MATX?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Freightos Limited Ordinary shares (CRGO) is pulling ahead at 23.
9% versus -18. 1% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (ZIM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Freightos Limited Ordinary shares grew EPS 23. 9% year-over-year, compared to -77. 7% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CRGO leads at 15. 6% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — CRGO or SHIP or ZIM or DAC or MATX?
Danaos Corporation (DAC) is the more profitable company, earning 47.
4% net margin versus -59. 5% for Freightos Limited Ordinary shares — meaning it keeps 47. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: DAC leads at 47. 8% versus -65. 0% for CRGO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CRGO leads at 66. 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.
07Is CRGO or SHIP or ZIM or DAC or MATX more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Danaos Corporation (DAC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 11x versus Matson, Inc. 's 0. 52x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Danaos Corporation (DAC) trades at 5. 3x forward P/E versus 13. 4x for Matson, Inc. — 8. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CRGO: 46. 3% to $3. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — CRGO or SHIP or ZIM or DAC or MATX?
In this comparison, ZIM (16.
4% yield), SHIP (2. 9% yield), DAC (2. 6% yield), MATX (0. 8% yield) pay a dividend. CRGO does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is CRGO or SHIP or ZIM or DAC or MATX better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Danaos Corporation (DAC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
62), 2. 6% yield, +225. 9% 10Y return). Freightos Limited Ordinary shares (CRGO) carries a higher beta of 1. 98 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (DAC: +225. 9%, CRGO: -79. 0%), 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.
10What are the main differences between CRGO and SHIP and ZIM and DAC and MATX?
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: CRGO is a small-cap high-growth stock; SHIP is a small-cap deep-value stock; ZIM is a small-cap deep-value stock; DAC is a small-cap deep-value stock; MATX is a small-cap deep-value stock. SHIP, ZIM, DAC, MATX pay a dividend while CRGO 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.