CWK vs JLL

For growth investors, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) is the stronger pick with 11.

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 8. 9% for Cushman & Wakefield plc (CWK). Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) offers the better valuation at 19. 4x trailing P/E (14. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) 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, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) is the cheapest at 19.

4x versus Cushman & Wakefield plc at 38. 2x. On forward P/E, Cushman & Wakefield plc is actually cheaper at 10. 1x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) delivered a total return of +69.

2%, compared to -17. 1% for Cushman & Wakefield plc (CWK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: JLL returned +181. 1% versus CWK's -18. 4%. 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), Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

26β versus Cushman & Wakefield plc's 1. 90β — meaning CWK is approximately 52% more volatile than JLL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 44% versus 166% for Cushman & Wakefield plc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) is pulling ahead at 11.

4% versus 8. 9% for Cushman & Wakefield plc (CWK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated grew EPS 45. 1% year-over-year, compared to -32. 1% for Cushman & Wakefield plc. Over a 3-year CAGR, JLL leads at 7. 8% 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.

Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) is the more profitable company, earning 3.

0% net margin versus 0. 9% for Cushman & Wakefield plc — meaning it keeps 3. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: JLL leads at 4. 5% versus 4. 5% for CWK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — JLL leads at 99. 0%, 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.

On forward earnings alone, Cushman & Wakefield plc (CWK) trades at 10.

1x forward P/E versus 14. 1x for Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated — 4. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CWK: 29. 4% to $18. 80.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.

26), +181. 1% 10Y return). Cushman & Wakefield plc (CWK) carries a higher beta of 1. 90 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (JLL: +181. 1%, CWK: -18. 4%), 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 Real Estate sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

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.