AAK AB (publ.) holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and stability adding further support. Danone still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
The clearest score difference appears in profitability, while growth still leans the other way. AAK AB (publ.) leads by 11 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Packaged Foods
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. AAK.ST and BN.PA share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how AAK AB (publ.) and Danone each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for AAK AB (publ.).
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where AAK.ST and BN.PA each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 6.8-point ROIC advantage.
Stability still tilts materially toward Danone S.A., which stops the result from looking dominant across the whole profile.
The profitability lead is clear, but pricing and stability still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the AAK.ST vs BN.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AAK.ST and BN.PA each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
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.