Adyen leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. VEND.OL does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. 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.
Profitability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. Adyen N.V. leads by 18 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in capital structure and revenue growth trajectory.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Adyen N.V. still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for VEND.OL.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
Where ADYEN.AS and VEND.OL each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 23.9-point operating margin advantage.
VEND.OL still looks less cycle-sensitive — that keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
The main edge on profitability is clear, but the broader result still comes with a real counterweight.
Break down the ADYEN.AS vs VEND.OL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ADYEN.AS and VEND.OL 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.