25 companies with high margin and capital efficiency comparable to Ackermans & Van Haaren NV (ACKB.BR) — identified by structural trajectory analysis, not sector labels alone.
Score range used for matching: 53–77
Ranked by closeness of quality score to ACKB.BR's reference score of 65. Delta shown in parentheses.
| # | Company | Margin & Quality Profile | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 |
AFL · Financial Services
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #2 |
TRV · Financial Services
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #3 |
ICE · Financial Services
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #4 |
AZO · Consumer Cyclical
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #5 |
PRU.L · Financial Services
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #6 |
URW.PA · Real Estate
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #7 |
RED.MC · Utilities
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #8 |
UPS · Industrials
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #9 |
TRGP · Energy
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #10 |
GBF.DE · Industrials
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #11 |
JBHT · Industrials
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #12 |
DLG.MI · Consumer Cyclical
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #13 |
OGE · Utilities
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #14 |
ELV · Healthcare
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #15 |
MELI · Consumer Cyclical
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #16 |
WMT · Consumer Defensive
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #17 |
AMAT · Technology
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #18 |
ERIE · Financial Services
similar →
|
65(+0) |
Analysis |
| #19 |
ULVR.L · Consumer Defensive
similar →
|
64(−1) |
Analysis |
| #20 |
MAP.MC · Financial Services
similar →
|
64(−1) |
Analysis |
Interactive peer comparison, trajectory view and live data for Ackermans & Van Haaren NV.
Trajectory similarity is rule-based and descriptive — not investment advice. Companies are matched by score proximity on a single dimension; this does not imply equivalence across all financial characteristics. Based on peer-relative structural scores in the AssetNext universe.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.