Ubiquiti holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and growth. ASML does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. In the market, ASML carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Ubiquiti's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Ubiquiti, 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 (ASML: Nasdaq 100, UI: Russell 1000).
The lead is spread across profitability and growth, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. The overall score gap is 22 points in favour of Ubiquiti Inc..
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 match is driven mainly by revenue growth trajectory and operating margin level.
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.
Ubiquiti Inc. looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ASML and UI each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Return on equity adds support too, with a 63-point advantage.
ASML Holding N.V. still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
The lead is built on both profitability and growth, making it broader than a single-dimension result.
Break down the ASML vs UI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ASML and UI 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.