Westlake leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Arkema still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward Arkema, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Westlake, 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 (AKE.PA: STOXX 600, WLK: Russell 1000).
Most of the separation is still concentrated in valuation. The overall score gap is 17 points in favour of Westlake Corporation.
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. AKE.PA and WLK share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Arkema and Westlake 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.
Westlake Corporation and Arkema S.A. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Westlake Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
Where AKE.PA and WLK each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The peer-relative valuation gap is very wide, with the stronger side also looking meaningfully cheaper.
Profitability still favours Arkema, with a 9.2-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
Valuation settles the comparison, while pricing and profitability keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the AKE.PA vs WLK comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AKE.PA and WLK 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.