Amphenol holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and stability. Somnigroup International still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Amphenol is in better shape — its trend is intact while Somnigroup International'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.
This is not just a one-metric split: both profitability and stability materially support the lead. The overall score gap is 16 points in favour of Amphenol Corporation.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in recent revenue growth and investment intensity.
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 remains mixed because the stronger profile and the more supportive price setup do not sit on the same side.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 19.2-point ROIC advantage.
Somnigroup International Inc. still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
The lead is built on both profitability and stability — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the APH vs SGI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how APH and SGI 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.