Structurally, Analog Devices and Adyen are closely matched — neither holds a meaningful edge overall. Adyen still leads on profitability and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Analog Devices is in better shape — its trend is intact while Adyen's trend has broken down.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (ADI: Russell 1000, ADYEN.AS: STOXX 600).
On stability, the clearer edge sits with Analog Devices, Inc., while the broader score remains level.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
Most of the shared profile comes through recent revenue growth and capital structure.
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.
The setup splits cleanly: structure favours Analog Devices, Inc., while the price setup favours Adyen N.V..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ADI and ADYEN.AS each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Profitability still favours Adyen, with a 11.5-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though profitability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the ADI vs ADYEN.AS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ADI and ADYEN.AS 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.