Bilfinger SE holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. On the market side, Bilfinger SE is in better shape — its trend is intact while Jacobs Solutions's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Bilfinger SE's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest separation starts in profitability, but valuation adds another real layer to the result. The overall score gap is 11 points in favour of Bilfinger SE.
Both operate in: Engineering & Construction
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. GBF.DE and J share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Bilfinger SE and Jacobs Solutions 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.
Bilfinger SE looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 11-point ROIC advantage.
Jacobs Solutions Inc. still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
Profitability is the clearest driver, and valuation also supports Bilfinger SE's broader structural position.
Break down the GBF.DE vs J comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how GBF.DE and J 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.