Operates a freight rail network across the western United States, hauling bulk commodities, intermodal containers and industrial goods.
Union Pacific (UNP) scores 6.3 out of 10 as of , computed from its reported financial statements. That reads as solid quality. The reading rests on profitability, and growth is what holds it back.
Data provided by Twelve Data. Scores are computed by Lemma Analysis from reported financials.
We cannot judge Union Pacific yet, because fewer than five years had both a return on capital and a cost of capital we could measure. This is not a “no”.
Quantitative signs of a moat, read from the filed statements. This is not a judgement of where it comes from (brand, network effects, switching costs). How Lemma measures a moat →
Railroads own assets nobody could rebuild and score well on margin and predictability, but they are also extraordinarily capital-intensive, so efficiency and cash conversion decide how much of that margin an owner ever sees. Volumes track industrial activity, which puts a cycle underneath a stable-looking business. A clear case where asset turnover has to be read sector-relative.
The Quality Score for UNP stands at 6.3 out of 10 as of October 18, 2026, which puts Union Pacific in the solid quality band. This band covers companies that do several things well but not everything, so the pillar detail below matters more than the headline. It rolls Union Pacific’s profitability, solvency, growth, efficiency and predictability into one number, each judged against the norms of its sector.
Among the 270 Industrials companies with a published score, that ranks at the 69th percentile, above the middle of the group. A typical company in the group scores 5.6, and the best quarter starts from 6.5. Union Pacific is above that typical reading.
Profitability scores 8.9 out of 10, which reads as strong. The median across 262 Industrials companies is 4.9, so Union Pacific is well above its peers on this pillar and ranks at the 97th percentile. High profitability means each unit of capital and of sales is turning into more profit than at most of its peers, which is usually the first sign of pricing power or a cost advantage.
On solvency, Union Pacific scores 5.8, an average reading. Its peers have a median of 7.1 across 241 Industrials companies, which places it below them, at the 33rd percentile. Leverage in the middle of the range is rarely a problem in good years, and it is worth watching how quickly it would tighten in a weak one.
On growth, Union Pacific scores 3.7, a weak reading. Its peers have a median of 5.4 across 216 Industrials companies, which places it well below them, at the 27th percentile. Weak growth means revenue and earnings have been flat or shrinking against peers, which can be cyclical or a sign of a market that is maturing.
Union Pacific’s efficiency score is 4.3 out of 10 (average). Against a median of 6.2 among 264 Industrials companies, that is well below the group and the 24th percentile. An average efficiency reading suggests the business turns its assets and earnings into cash at roughly the rate its sector does.
On predictability, Union Pacific scores 7.8, a strong reading. Its peers have a median of 5.0 across 267 Industrials companies, which places it well above them, at the 92nd percentile. A strong predictability score rewards consistency: revenue and earnings that rarely surprise in either direction.
The gap between Union Pacific’s best and worst pillar is wide: profitability at 8.9 against growth at 3.7, 5.2 points apart. An average of two readings this different deserves a closer look than the headline number. A profitability lead usually reflects something durable in the business model rather than a good year. Slow growth limits how fast the business can compound, even when everything else is in order.
Closing the gap on growth would do the most for the overall. At the median of Industrials companies, 5.4, Union Pacific would score about 6.6 instead of 6.3. The weights add up to 100 points (profitability 25, solvency 20, growth 20, efficiency 15, predictability 20), and Union Pacific has a reading on every pillar.
For a fair comparison, start with companies of a similar size: the Industrials companies below are nearest to Union Pacific by market value, each scored on the same pillars.
How much profit the company generates from its capital and sales.
The company’s ability to service debt and meet its obligations.
How fast revenue, earnings and cash flow are compounding.
How well assets and earnings convert into cash and output.
How stable and consistent results have been over time.
Each metric is scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks, where higher is better. Metrics roll up into five pillars, and the pillars combine into the overall score using the weights shown. Sector-sensitive metrics are judged relative to peers in the same sector.
This score is a systematic, backward-looking read of reported fundamentals. It does not judge valuation, management quality, competitive moat, or future prospects, and can be distorted by one-off items or unusual accounting. Treat it as a starting point, not a recommendation.
Educational only. Not investment advice.
On this reading Union Pacific scores 6.3 out of 10, which reads as solid quality. Its strongest pillar is profitability, its weakest is growth. Quality is not the same as a good investment: the score says nothing about the price you would pay.
Union Pacific ranks at the 69th percentile of the 270 Industrials companies Lemma publishes a score for. The median there is 5.6 and the top quarter starts at 6.5, against Union Pacific’s 6.3.
Five pillars, each scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks and then weighted into one overall reading: profitability, solvency, growth, efficiency and predictability. Everything comes from reported financials, and nothing comes from price, sentiment or forecasts.
This page last changed on October 18, 2026. The score moves with the financial statements, so the page changes when a new filing moves the reading rather than on a schedule. Live figures for UNP are in the app.
No. Quality and valuation are separate questions, and a good business at the wrong price is still a bad purchase. Score the business here, then price it with a DCF you control.
Inside Lemma Analysis the same five pillars run on every company we cover, with the metrics behind each one, current fundamentals, a DCF you control and a watchlist that tells you when the price catches up.
Free to start · No credit card