Western Digital leads structurally, with growth as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Adyen still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Western Digital is in better shape — its trend is intact while Adyen's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Western Digital's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (ADYEN.AS: STOXX 600, WDC: Russell 1000).
Growth still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison.
This pair is matched through 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 match is driven mainly by revenue stability and margin consistency.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Western Digital Corporation looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ADYEN.AS and WDC each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Revenue growth reinforces the category-level growth lead.
Profitability still favours Adyen, with a 12.5-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
The growth edge is decisive, but profitability still pushes back — the result holds, but not without a real counterweight.
Break down the ADYEN.AS vs WDC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ADYEN.AS and WDC 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.