The structural profiles are close, with Kontron carrying a narrow edge on stability. Arcadis still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Kontron holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Kontron'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 (ARCAD.AS: STOXX 600, KTN.DE: HDAX).
Stability is the clearest driver, while growth keeps the result from looking one-way.
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.
The clearest structural overlap shows up 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.
Kontron AG and Arcadis NV look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Kontron AG.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ARCAD.AS and KTN.DE 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.
There is still a strong counterforce in growth, so the lead stays clear without becoming a sweep.
The main read on stability is clearer than the broader score gap.
Break down the ARCAD.AS vs KTN.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ARCAD.AS and KTN.DE 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.