The structural profiles are close, with Amphenol carrying a narrow edge on valuation. ONEOK still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Amphenol is in better shape — its trend is intact while ONEOK's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Amphenol's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The page question resolves through valuation, where ONEOK, Inc. holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours Amphenol Corporation.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity points to a meaningful structural match, though not a tight one.
The match is driven mainly by recent revenue growth and capital structure.
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.
Amphenol Corporation is stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for ONEOK, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The main spread comes from a meaningfully cheaper peer-relative valuation.
ONEOK, Inc. still looks less cycle-sensitive — that keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
The lead is built on both valuation and stability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the APH vs OKE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how APH and OKE 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.