RLGT vs CHRW

For growth investors, Radiant Logistics, Inc.

(RLGT) is the stronger pick with 12. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -8. 4% for C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW). Radiant Logistics, Inc. (RLGT) offers the better valuation at 23. 7x trailing P/E (34. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Radiant Logistics, Inc. (RLGT) 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.

On trailing P/E, Radiant Logistics, Inc.

(RLGT) is the cheapest at 23. 7x versus C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. at 35. 5x. On forward P/E, C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. is actually cheaper at 27. 9x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Radiant Logistics, Inc. wins at 3. 23x versus C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 's 5. 20x.

Over the past 5 years, C.

H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) delivered a total return of +84. 1%, compared to +16. 9% for Radiant Logistics, Inc. (RLGT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CHRW returned +163. 6% versus RLGT's +120. 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), C.

H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 95β versus Radiant Logistics, Inc. 's 1. 16β — meaning RLGT is approximately 22% more volatile than CHRW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Radiant Logistics, Inc. (RLGT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 37% versus 88% for C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

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

(RLGT) 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: Radiant Logistics, Inc. grew EPS 118. 8% year-over-year, compared to 25. 1% for C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CHRW leads at -13. 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.

C.

H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) is the more profitable company, earning 3. 6% net margin versus 1. 9% for Radiant 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 2. 3% for RLGT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RLGT leads at 17. 5%, 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.

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, Radiant Logistics, Inc. (RLGT) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 3. 23x versus C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 's 5. 20x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) trades at 27. 9x forward P/E versus 34. 7x for Radiant Logistics, Inc. — 6. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CHRW: 9. 3% to $187. 38.

In this comparison, CHRW (1.

4% yield) pays a dividend. RLGT 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%, RLGT: +120. 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 Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

CHRW pays a dividend while RLGT 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.