Structurally, Albemarle and EMS-CHEMIE are closely matched — neither holds a meaningful edge overall. EMS-CHEMIE still leads on profitability and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward EMS-CHEMIE, which does not confirm the structural lead.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (ALB: S&P 500, EMSN.SW: STOXX 600).
The page question resolves more clearly through profitability, even though the overall score is effectively tied.
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ALB and EMSN.SW share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Albemarle and EMS-CHEMIE 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.
EMS-CHEMIE HOLDING AG occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Albemarle Corporation still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ALB and EMSN.SW each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability gap is very wide, with the stronger side earning materially better operating marks.
A meaningful counterforce remains in stability, which keeps the comparison from looking completely one-sided.
The lead is built on both profitability and growth — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the ALB vs EMSN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ALB and EMSN.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.
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.