The structural profiles are close, with Fresenius SE KGaA carrying a narrow edge on stability. Align Technology still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward Align Technology, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Fresenius SE KGaA, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Stability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in revenue growth trajectory and margin consistency.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in stability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Profitability still favours Align Technology, with a 11.6-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
The main read on stability is clearer than the broader score gap.
Break down the ALGN vs FRE.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ALGN and FRE.DE 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.