Encompass Health holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and profitability. ASM International still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, ASM International carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Encompass Health's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Encompass Health, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest separation starts in valuation, but growth adds another real layer to the result. Encompass Health Corporation leads by 9 points on the overall comparison score.
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.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and revenue stability.
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.
Encompass Health Corporation and ASM International NV look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Encompass Health Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 13.1 turns lower.
Profitability still favours ASM International, with a 7-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
The valuation lead is clear, but pricing and profitability still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the ASM.AS vs EHC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ASM.AS and EHC 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.