AMETEK holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across stability and profitability. Schneider Electric S.E does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. On the market side, AMETEK is in better shape — its trend is intact while Schneider Electric S.E's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — AMETEK's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The lead is spread across stability and profitability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. AMETEK, Inc. leads by 28 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. AME and SU.PA share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how AMETEK and Schneider Electric S.E each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
The setup stays mixed because structure and the price setup do not align cleanly in one direction.
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 gives the lead a second hard layer of support, with a 9.9-point operating margin advantage.
The lead is built on both stability and profitability, making it broader than a single-dimension result.
Break down the AME vs SU.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AME and SU.PA 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.