KLA holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and growth. ASM International does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
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. The overall score gap is 16 points in favour of KLA Corporation.
Both operate in: Semiconductor Equipment & Materials
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ASM.AS and KLAC share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how ASM International and KLA 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.
KLA Corporation looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a trailing P/E that is 2.9 turns lower.
ASM International NV still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
The lead is built on both valuation and growth, making it broader than a single-dimension result.
Break down the ASM.AS vs KLAC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ASM.AS and KLAC 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.