LyondellBasell Industries leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Arkema does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — LyondellBasell Industries holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — LyondellBasell Industries's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The comparison is mainly decided in valuation, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. The overall score gap is 26 points in favour of LyondellBasell Industries N.V..
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. AKE.PA and LYB share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Arkema and LyondellBasell Industries each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Arkema S.A..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
The main spread comes from a meaningfully cheaper peer-relative valuation.
Arkema S.A. still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Valuation is the clearest single gap, but the broader lead is not limited to that alone.
Break down the AKE.PA vs LYB comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AKE.PA and LYB 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.