adidas AG ranks in an above-average position in its peer group, with growth as the main structural support while stability remains the clearest constraint. The market setup has weakened, with clear trend damage and relative performance under pressure. Price behavior is partially reflecting the structural picture, with a moderate gap remaining.
Peer-relative scores, weakest to strongest
adidas AG is a global sportswear manufacturer based in Germany, producing athletic footwear, apparel, and accessories. The company operates worldwide with a focus on branded consumer products.
A return on invested capital of 16.06% and positive net income of €1.3bn position adidas as a quality leader, yet the company’s market confidence and stability profile weigh on valuation. The valuation discount is anchored by a stability score of just 29/100 and a trend score of 7/100—both near the bottom of the peer group—indicating that investors remain cautious about the sustainability of recent improvements. Internally, this caution is reinforced by a history of deep drawdowns, with adidas experiencing a maximum decline of -71.5% from peak to trough, a level that typically signals a significant loss of market trust. While positive revenue growth and robust ROIC provide a solid foundation, these strengths have not resulted in a sustained recovery in sentiment. The company’s ability to grow and generate returns is a positive factor, but it remains secondary to the ongoing skepticism reflected in both stability and trend metrics. Recent sector developments neither alleviate nor increase pressure: there have been no major external events to change the situation, and the broader environment does not alter the disconnect between adidas’s business quality and its market standing. This context reinforces the core assessment—there is no external catalyst currently in play that would prompt a rerating or further de-rating. Compared to peers, adidas’s profitability and capital efficiency are well above the sector median, with most direct competitors posting lower quality scores. However, the depth of adidas’s confidence and stability discount is more pronounced than for many peers, especially given its underlying fundamentals. This gap partly reflects a mismatch between adidas’s operational strength and the market’s willingness to reward it. A more positive outlook would require market confidence to stabilize and volatility to decrease. Supporting improvement would include a trend score recovery to at least peer median and a stability score above 50/100. Until then, adidas appears as a discount despite strong fundamentals.
Break down ADS.DE's position across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
This analysis is rule-based and descriptive. Peer-relative scores are derived from functional peer group comparisons using publicly available financial data. Scores reflect structural positioning only and do not constitute investment advice, a buy or sell recommendation, or a forecast of future performance. AssetNext peer scores are recalculated periodically as new data becomes available.
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.