Amphenol leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Arm still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Arm carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Amphenol's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Amphenol, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (APH: Russell 1000, ARM: Nasdaq 100).
The comparison is mainly decided in valuation, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight.
This comparison is anchored in 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 capital structure and revenue growth trajectory.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Arm Holdings plc occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Amphenol Corporation still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 53 turns lower.
A meaningful counterforce remains in profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking completely one-sided.
The main read on valuation is clearer than the broader score gap.
Break down the APH vs ARM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how APH and ARM 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.