The structural profiles are close, with Hormel Foods carrying a narrow edge on profitability. Carrefour still leads on valuation and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Carrefour carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Hormel Foods's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Hormel Foods, 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 (CA.PA: STOXX 600, HRL: Russell 1000).
The lead runs through profitability, while valuation still acts as a real counterweight on the other side.
This comparison is anchored in 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.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and revenue stability.
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.
The price setup looks more supportive for Hormel Foods Corporation, but Carrefour SA still has the stronger structure.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CA.PA and HRL each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 8.5-point operating margin advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Carrefour, with a forward P/E that is 7.4 turns lower there.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CA.PA vs HRL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CA.PA and HRL 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.