Your idea is fine, but the execution is unclear which makes it not fine.
Your goal should always be to minimize the amount of cognitive load you put on the user, and employ as many natural associations that you'd like and expect an average, rational-enough user to perceive.
That is to say, you want to make things obvious.
Your current flaws are:
- This isn't an absolute rule, but I would argue generally black text on white BG is a thing of the past and if it is chosen, it must be chosen consciously for a very specific reason. Why? Because the high contrast is jarring, and jarring pulls from a users very limited attention span.
- Your labels are bolded, when this is a data-analysis tool. The label and the number are both essential -- yes -- but I argue that the numbers are what the user is interested in, and are what should be bolded instead.
- My main problem is that it's unclear as to what the number is describing at a glance, and the user has to think/analyze. Your only visual affordance is that the width of a circular bar is a little bit wider than the other one. This is not immediately obvious enough to be sufficient for users to parse at a glance.
My proposed edit:
My arguments for why this works better:
- What is the number I'm looking at describing? Why, it's obvious! It's describing the portion of the bar that matches the color of the number!
- The label changed to grey reduces its contrast and makes it "pop out less," which makes it easier to parse as a whole, in my opinion.
- A quantitative representation of data being highlighted is bolded? Let's bold the numerical value of the data as well to match.