GXO vs CHRW

For growth investors, GXO Logistics, Inc.

(GXO) is the stronger pick with 12. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -8. 4% for C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW). C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) offers the better valuation at 35. 5x trailing P/E (27. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate GXO Logistics, Inc. (GXO) a "Buy" — based on 18 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, C.

H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) is the cheapest at 35. 5x versus GXO Logistics, Inc. at 185. 3x. On forward P/E, GXO Logistics, Inc. is actually cheaper at 17. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, C.

H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) delivered a total return of +84. 1%, compared to -4. 8% for GXO Logistics, Inc. (GXO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CHRW returned +163. 6% versus GXO's -4. 8%. 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 GXO Logistics, Inc. 's 1. 45β — meaning GXO is approximately 53% more volatile than CHRW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 88% versus 3% for GXO Logistics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), GXO Logistics, Inc.

(GXO) is pulling ahead at 12. 5% versus -8. 4% for C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. grew EPS 25. 1% year-over-year, compared to -75. 0% for GXO Logistics, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GXO leads at 13. 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.

C.

H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) is the more profitable company, earning 3. 6% net margin versus 0. 2% for GXO Logistics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 3. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CHRW leads at 4. 9% versus 3. 2% for GXO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — GXO leads at 11. 6%, 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, GXO Logistics, Inc.

(GXO) trades at 17. 2x forward P/E versus 27. 9x for C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. — 10. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GXO: 40. 2% to $72. 71.

In this comparison, CHRW (1.

4% yield) pays a dividend. GXO 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. 4% yield, +163. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CHRW: +163. 6%, GXO: -4. 8%), 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.

CHRW pays a dividend while GXO 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.