Kuehne + Nagel International holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Builders FirstSource still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Kuehne + Nagel International holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Kuehne + Nagel International's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (BLDR: S&P 500, KNIN.SW: STOXX 600).
The lead is spread across profitability and growth, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. The overall score gap is 18 points in favour of Kuehne + Nagel International AG.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
Most of the shared profile comes through operating margin level and investment intensity.
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 price setup looks more supportive for Kuehne + Nagel International AG, but Builders FirstSource, Inc. still has the stronger structure.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 10.8-point ROIC advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Builders FirstSource, with a forward P/E that is 7.8 turns lower there.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the BLDR vs KNIN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BLDR and KNIN.SW 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.