RATIONAL Aktiengesellschaft leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. In the market, Carpenter Technology carries the stronger setup — intact trend against RATIONAL Aktiengesellschaft's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with RATIONAL Aktiengesellschaft, 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 (CRS: Russell 1000, RAA.DE: HDAX).
Profitability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The overall score gap is 13 points in favour of RATIONAL Aktiengesellschaft.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
Most of the shared profile comes through revenue growth trajectory and investment intensity.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
RATIONAL Aktiengesellschaft still looks stronger, and the price setup does not materially undermine that lead.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CRS and RAA.DE each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 47-point ROIC advantage.
On the market side, Carpenter Technology carries the stronger trend while RATIONAL Aktiengesellschaft's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Profitability clearly separates the pair, while the broader read stays strong rather than one-way.
Break down the CRS vs RAA.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CRS and RAA.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.
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.