RLGT vs UBER

For growth investors, Uber Technologies, Inc.

(UBER) is the stronger pick with 18. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 12. 5% for Radiant Logistics, Inc. (RLGT). Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER) offers the better valuation at 16. 2x trailing P/E (22. 8x 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, Uber Technologies, Inc.

(UBER) is the cheapest at 16. 2x versus Radiant Logistics, Inc. at 23. 7x. On forward P/E, Uber Technologies, Inc. is actually cheaper at 22. 8x.

Over the past 5 years, Uber Technologies, Inc.

(UBER) delivered a total return of +63. 2%, compared to +16. 9% for Radiant Logistics, Inc. (RLGT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RLGT returned +120. 4% versus UBER's +84. 6%. 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), Uber Technologies, Inc.

(UBER) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 09β versus Radiant Logistics, Inc. 's 1. 16β — meaning RLGT is approximately 7% more volatile than UBER relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Radiant Logistics, Inc. (RLGT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 37% versus 48% for Uber Technologies, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Uber Technologies, Inc.

(UBER) is pulling ahead at 18. 3% versus 12. 5% for Radiant Logistics, Inc. (RLGT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Radiant Logistics, Inc. grew EPS 118. 8% year-over-year, compared to 3. 7% for Uber Technologies, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, UBER leads at 17. 7% 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.

Uber Technologies, Inc.

(UBER) is the more profitable company, earning 19. 3% net margin versus 1. 9% for Radiant Logistics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 19. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: UBER leads at 10. 7% versus 2. 3% for RLGT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — UBER leads at 39. 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.

On forward earnings alone, Uber Technologies, Inc.

(UBER) trades at 22. 8x forward P/E versus 34. 7x for Radiant Logistics, Inc. — 11. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for UBER: 36. 7% to $104. 88.

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, Uber Technologies, Inc.

(UBER) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 09)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (UBER: +84. 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (RLGT (Industrials) and UBER (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: RLGT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; UBER is a mid-cap high-growth stock. 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.