CDW holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across stability and growth. Asseco Poland still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward Asseco Poland, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with CDW, 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 (ACP.WA: STOXX 600, CDW: Nasdaq 100).
Stability points more clearly toward Asseco Poland S.A., even if the broader score still leans toward CDW Corporation.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
The match is driven mainly by margin consistency and revenue growth trajectory.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for CDW Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ACP.WA and CDW each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The stability gap is wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Stability is the one area where Asseco Poland S.A. still pushes back materially — it is the steadier name on this dimension, which keeps the result from reading as one-way.
The lead is built on both stability and growth — though stability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the ACP.WA vs CDW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ACP.WA and CDW 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.