Integrated Freight & Logistics
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
LSTR vs CHRW vs FWRD vs HUBG vs XPO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Integrated Freight & Logistics
Integrated Freight & Logistics
Integrated Freight & Logistics
Integrated Freight & Logistics
LSTR vs CHRW vs FWRD vs HUBG vs XPO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Integrated Freight & Logistics | Integrated Freight & Logistics | Integrated Freight & Logistics | Integrated Freight & Logistics | Integrated Freight & Logistics |
| Market Cap | $6.18B | $20.33B | $547M | $2.61B | $24.28B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $4.77B | $16.20B | $2.46B | $3.73B | $8.30B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $125M | $599M | $-91M | $105M | $348M |
| Gross Margin | 17.2% | 8.3% | 23.1% | 48.7% | 12.2% |
| Operating Margin | 3.4% | 4.9% | 2.1% | 3.8% | 9.1% |
| Forward P/E | 32.2x | 27.9x | — | 26.2x | 43.9x |
| Total Debt | $133M | $1.63B | $2.16B | $509M | $4.70B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $397M | $161M | $106M | $98M | $310M |
LSTR vs CHRW vs FWRD vs HUBG vs XPO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Landstar System, In… (LSTR) | 100 | 156.5 | +56.5% |
| C.H. Robinson World… (CHRW) | 100 | 211.2 | +111.2% |
| Forward Air Corpora… (FWRD) | 100 | 34.9 | -65.1% |
| Hub Group, Inc. (HUBG) | 100 | 183.9 | +83.9% |
| XPO Logistics, Inc. (XPO) | 100 | 758.7 | +658.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LSTR vs CHRW vs FWRD vs HUBG vs XPO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LSTR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 6 yrs, beta 1.06, yield 2.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.06, Low D/E 16.8%, current ratio 1.75x
- Beta 1.06, yield 2.0%, current ratio 1.75x
- 2.0% yield, 6-year raise streak, vs CHRW's 1.4%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
CHRW carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for stability and momentum.
- Beta 0.95 vs FWRD's 2.28, lower leverage
- +98.6% vs FWRD's +0.6%
- 11.5% ROA vs FWRD's -3.3%, ROIC 18.0% vs 1.2%
FWRD is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 0.8%, EPS growth 88.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 14.1%
HUBG is the clearest fit if your priority is value.
- Better valuation composite
XPO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- 21.5% 10Y total return vs CHRW's 163.6%
- PEG 1.59 vs HUBG's 21.49
- 1.1% revenue growth vs CHRW's -8.4%
- 4.2% margin vs FWRD's -3.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 1.1% revenue growth vs CHRW's -8.4% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 4.2% margin vs FWRD's -3.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.95 vs FWRD's 2.28, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.0% yield, 6-year raise streak, vs CHRW's 1.4%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +98.6% vs FWRD's +0.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.5% ROA vs FWRD's -3.3%, ROIC 18.0% vs 1.2% |
LSTR vs CHRW vs FWRD vs HUBG vs XPO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
LSTR vs CHRW vs FWRD vs HUBG vs XPO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
XPO leads in 2 of 6 categories
HUBG leads 1 • LSTR leads 1 • CHRW leads 0 • FWRD leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
XPO leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CHRW is the larger business by revenue, generating $16.2B annually — 6.6x FWRD's $2.5B. XPO is the more profitable business, keeping 4.2% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FWRD's -3.7%. On growth, XPO holds the edge at +7.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $4.8B | $16.2B | $2.5B | $3.7B | $8.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $209M | $896M | $206M | $331M | $1.3B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $125M | $599M | -$91M | $105M | $348M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $239M | $858M | $38M | $113M | $457M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +17.2% | +8.3% | +23.1% | +48.7% | +12.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.4% | +4.9% | +2.1% | +3.8% | +9.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +2.6% | +3.7% | -3.7% | +2.8% | +4.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +5.0% | +5.3% | +1.6% | +3.0% | +5.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +1.3% | -0.8% | -5.1% | -5.3% | +7.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +36.5% | +9.9% | +35.1% | +20.5% | +49.1% |
Valuation Metrics
HUBG leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 25.3x trailing earnings, HUBG trades at a 68% valuation discount to XPO's 78.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), XPO offers better value at 2.84x vs HUBG's 20.74x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $6.2B | $20.3B | $547M | $2.6B | $24.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $5.9B | $21.8B | $2.6B | $3.0B | $28.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 54.97x | 35.48x | -4.98x | 25.30x | 78.34x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 32.20x | 27.86x | — | 26.22x | 43.91x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 6.62x | — | 20.74x | 2.84x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 27.34x | 24.28x | 13.75x | 9.06x | 22.94x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.30x | 1.25x | 0.22x | 0.66x | 2.98x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 7.94x | 11.28x | 3.32x | 1.55x | 13.22x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 28.75x | 22.72x | 35.82x | 18.15x | 73.80x |
Profitability & Efficiency
LSTR leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CHRW delivers a 33.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $33 in annual profit, vs $-53 for FWRD. LSTR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.17x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FWRD's 13.36x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CHRW scores 7/9 vs XPO's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +14.6% | +33.3% | -52.6% | +6.1% | +19.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +7.6% | +11.5% | -3.3% | +3.7% | +4.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +22.1% | +18.0% | +1.2% | +5.1% | +9.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +16.4% | +25.6% | +1.5% | +6.1% | +11.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.17x | 0.88x | 13.36x | 0.30x | 2.53x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$263M | $1.5B | $2.1B | $410M | $4.4B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $397M | $161M | $106M | $98M | $310M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $133M | $1.6B | $2.2B | $509M | $4.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 79.62x | 6.27x | 0.32x | 11.77x | 3.21x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
XPO leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in XPO five years ago would be worth $40,679 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,978 for FWRD. Over the past 12 months, CHRW leads with a +98.6% total return vs FWRD's +0.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors XPO at 62.2% vs FWRD's -42.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +25.6% | +5.1% | -31.0% | +0.9% | +49.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +40.2% | +98.6% | +0.6% | +37.5% | +88.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +7.0% | +73.6% | -81.3% | +20.2% | +326.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +11.1% | +84.1% | -80.2% | +21.2% | +306.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +208.2% | +163.6% | -47.3% | +122.3% | +2145.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +2.3% | +20.2% | -42.8% | +6.3% | +62.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — LSTR and CHRW each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CHRW is the less volatile stock with a 0.95 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FWRD's 2.28 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. LSTR currently trades 93.0% from its 52-week high vs FWRD's 53.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.06x | 0.95x | 2.28x | 1.21x | 1.73x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $195.58 | $203.34 | $32.47 | $53.26 | $231.46 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $119.32 | $86.58 | $14.81 | $31.52 | $108.58 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.0% | +84.3% | +53.4% | +80.8% | +89.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 63.4 | 42.9 | 42.4 | 58.7 | 50.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 435K | 1.7M | 733K | 723K | 1.4M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — LSTR and FWRD each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LSTR as "Hold", CHRW as "Hold", FWRD as "Hold", HUBG as "Hold", XPO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 113.5% upside for FWRD (target: $37) vs -6.2% for LSTR (target: $171). For income investors, LSTR offers the higher dividend yield at 1.98% vs HUBG's 1.15%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $170.75 | $187.38 | $37.00 | $44.33 | $209.07 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 33 | 46 | 21 | 31 | 32 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.0% | +1.4% | — | +1.2% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 6 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $3.59 | $2.48 | — | $0.49 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.9% | +1.7% | +0.2% | +3.0% | +0.5% |
XPO leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). HUBG leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
LSTR vs CHRW vs FWRD vs HUBG vs XPO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LSTR or CHRW or FWRD or HUBG or XPO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, XPO Logistics, Inc.
(XPO) is the stronger pick with 1. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -8. 4% for C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW). Hub Group, Inc. (HUBG) offers the better valuation at 25. 3x trailing P/E (26. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate XPO Logistics, Inc. (XPO) a "Buy" — based on 32 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 — LSTR or CHRW or FWRD or HUBG or XPO?
On trailing P/E, Hub Group, Inc.
(HUBG) is the cheapest at 25. 3x versus XPO Logistics, Inc. at 78. 3x. On forward P/E, Hub Group, Inc. is actually cheaper at 26. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: XPO Logistics, Inc. wins at 1. 59x versus Hub Group, Inc. 's 21. 49x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LSTR or CHRW or FWRD or HUBG or XPO?
Over the past 5 years, XPO Logistics, Inc.
(XPO) delivered a total return of +306. 8%, compared to -80. 2% for Forward Air Corporation (FWRD). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: XPO returned +21. 5% versus FWRD's -47. 3%. 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 — LSTR or CHRW or FWRD or HUBG or XPO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), C.
H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 95β versus Forward Air Corporation's 2. 28β — meaning FWRD is approximately 140% more volatile than CHRW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Landstar System, Inc. (LSTR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 13% for Forward Air Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — LSTR or CHRW or FWRD or HUBG or XPO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), XPO Logistics, Inc.
(XPO) is pulling ahead at 1. 1% versus -8. 4% for C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Forward Air Corporation grew EPS 88. 3% year-over-year, compared to -39. 9% for Landstar System, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FWRD leads at 14. 1% 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 — LSTR or CHRW or FWRD or HUBG or XPO?
XPO Logistics, Inc.
(XPO) is the more profitable company, earning 3. 9% net margin versus -4. 3% for Forward Air Corporation — meaning it keeps 3. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: XPO leads at 8. 9% versus 1. 5% for FWRD. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — HUBG leads at 85. 4%, 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 LSTR or CHRW or FWRD or HUBG or XPO 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, XPO Logistics, Inc. (XPO) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 59x versus Hub Group, Inc. 's 21. 49x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Hub Group, Inc. (HUBG) trades at 26. 2x forward P/E versus 43. 9x for XPO Logistics, Inc. — 17. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FWRD: 113. 5% to $37. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — LSTR or CHRW or FWRD or HUBG or XPO?
In this comparison, LSTR (2.
0% yield), CHRW (1. 4% yield), HUBG (1. 2% yield) pay a dividend. FWRD, XPO do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is LSTR or CHRW or FWRD or HUBG or XPO better for a retirement portfolio?
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). Forward Air Corporation (FWRD) carries a higher beta of 2. 28 — 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: +163. 6%, FWRD: -47. 3%), 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 LSTR and CHRW and FWRD and HUBG and XPO?
Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
LSTR, CHRW, HUBG pay a dividend while FWRD, XPO do 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.