Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GXO scored 52.7, ZTO scored 64.9 — ZTO leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. GXO's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but ZTO's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
GXO
GXO Logistics, Inc.
Integrated Freight & Logistics · Quality-Growth
52.7
$46.56 · $5.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
12.2
ZTO leads
ZTO
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc.
Integrated Freight & Logistics · Quality-Growth
64.9
$20.15 · $15.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestZTO11.0x
Fastest growthGXO+12.5%
Strongest balance sheetZTO0.35
Highest qualityZTO76 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueZTO-3%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
GXO
stronger →← stronger
ZTO
39
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
76
85
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
80
44
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
81
ZTO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GXO
ZTO
$180mC
FCF
$891mC+
+12.5%B+
Rev
+10.9%B
2.02C
D/E
0.35A-
41.2xC
P/E
11.0xA
1.14B+
PEG
1.01B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
GXO
ZTO
122% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% below
~33%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~7%/yr
-61%
1-yr DCF upside
-6%
-55%
5-yr DCF upside
+3%
-45%
10-yr DCF upside
+18%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Integrated Freight & Logistics · market cap $5.3b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $66.85 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $68.59 (implying +47% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 137% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 2.02 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Down 30% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.57 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
Integrated Freight & Logistics · market cap $15.1b. Down 23% from 52-week high of $26.20 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. 18 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $27.88 (implying +38% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 14% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
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 GXO and ZTO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 12.2 points in favor of ZTO. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityGXO 38.8 · ZTO 76.3ZTO +37.5
ValueGXO 44.1 · ZTO 81.3ZTO +37.2
GrowthGXO 85.3 · ZTO 79.8GXO +5.5
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 ZTO or GXO the better stock?
ZTO scores higher: ZTO 64.9, GXO 52.7 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 ZTO and GXO differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where ZTO leads by 38 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 ZTO and GXO 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.