bioMérieux holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and stability adding further support. Clean Harbors still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Clean Harbors carries the stronger setup — intact trend against bioMérieux's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with bioMérieux, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The result is anchored in profitability, but stability also reinforces the same direction. The overall score gap is 12 points in favour of bioMérieux S.A..
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 strongest overlap appears in recent revenue growth and margin consistency.
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.
The setup stays mixed because structure and the price setup do not align cleanly in one direction.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 6.2-point operating margin advantage.
On the market side, Clean Harbors carries the stronger trend while bioMérieux's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with stability adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the BIM.PA vs CLH comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BIM.PA and CLH 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.