Integrated Freight & Logistics · market cap $69.0b. 16% off the 52-week high of $345.37. 26 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $355.50 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
ROE 14% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 115% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $69.0b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Net margin 4.7% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
RXORXO, Inc.
Trucking · $28.91 · beta 1.99
Why now
Trucking · market cap $4.8b. 3% off the 52-week high of $29.90. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $27.04 (implying -6% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$76m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Currently unprofitable (margin -1.7%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Beta 1.99 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where FDX and RXO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 36.6 points in favor of FDX. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueFDX 68.7 · RXO 7.0FDX +61.7
QualityFDX 56.1 · RXO 26.2FDX +29.9
GrowthFDX 55.7 · RXO 68.7RXO +13.0
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is FDX or RXO the better stock?
FDX scores higher: FDX 59.9, RXO 23.3 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do FDX and RXO differ most?
The widest gap is value, where FDX leads by 62 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are FDX and RXO scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.