HELLA KGaA holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and stability. BorgWarner still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, BorgWarner carries the stronger setup — intact trend against HELLA KGaA's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with HELLA KGaA, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest separation starts in profitability, but stability adds another real layer to the result. The overall score gap is 29 points in favour of HELLA GmbH & Co. KGaA.
Both operate in: Auto Parts
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. BWA and HLE.DE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how BorgWarner and HELLA KGaA 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.
Neither company combines the stronger profile with the cheaper valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 10.2-point ROIC advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for BorgWarner, with a forward P/E that is 22.2 turns lower there.
The lead is built on both profitability and stability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the BWA vs HLE.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BWA and HLE.DE 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.