The structural profiles are close, with Adyen carrying a narrow edge on stability. Analog Devices still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Analog Devices carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Adyen's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Adyen, 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 (ADI: Russell 1000, ADYEN.AS: STOXX 600).
The page question resolves through stability, where Analog Devices, Inc. holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours Adyen N.V..
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair still fits the compare framework, though the long-term structural overlap is relatively light.
The strongest overlap appears in 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 clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
Earnings growth also leans toward ADI, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though growth 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.