Seagate Technology leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Carvana Co still leads on growth and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Seagate Technology is in better shape — its trend is intact while Carvana Co's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Seagate Technology's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. Seagate Technology Holdings plc leads by 9 points on the overall comparison score.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in margin consistency and capital structure.
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.
Seagate Technology Holdings plc occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Carvana Co. still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 22.4-point operating margin advantage.
Carvana Co still pushes back on growth, with a 36-point revenue-growth advantage that keeps the read from becoming one-way.
Profitability points more clearly to Seagate Technology Holdings plc, but growth and current pricing keep the broader result mixed.
Break down the CVNA vs STX comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CVNA and STX 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.