Ackermans & Van Haaren holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Swissquote still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Ackermans & Van Haaren is in better shape — its trend is intact while Swissquote's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Ackermans & Van Haaren's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest score difference appears in stability. The overall score gap is 13 points in favour of Ackermans & Van Haaren NV.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
The strongest overlap appears in margin consistency and recent revenue growth.
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.
Neither company combines the stronger profile with the cheaper valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Growth still leans toward Swissquote Group Holding SA, so the lead is real without reading as one-way.
The stability edge is decisive, even though current pricing and growth still lean somewhat toward Swissquote Group Holding SA.
Break down the ACKB.BR vs SQN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ACKB.BR and SQN.SW 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.
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.