Valeo SE holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and valuation adding further support. On the market side, Valeo SE is in better shape — its trend is intact while Aptiv's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Valeo SE's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (APTV: Russell 1000, FR.PA: STOXX 600).
Growth remains the main source of distance in the comparison. The overall score gap is 11 points in favour of Valeo SE.
Both operate in: Auto Parts
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. APTV and FR.PA share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Aptiv and Valeo SE each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Valeo SE and Aptiv PLC look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Valeo SE.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where APTV and FR.PA each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Aptiv PLC still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
Growth is the clearest driver, and valuation also supports Valeo SE's broader structural position.
Break down the APTV vs FR.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how APTV and FR.PA 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.