Lonza leads structurally, with growth as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. CD Projekt still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in growth. Lonza Group AG leads by 9 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity points to a meaningful structural match, though not a tight one.
The match is driven mainly by revenue growth trajectory and investment intensity.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup stays mixed because structure and the price setup do not align cleanly in one direction.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CDR.WA and LONN.SW each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Lonza Group AG also shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which makes the lead look less detached from the underlying business picture.
Growth settles the comparison, while pricing and stability keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the CDR.WA vs LONN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CDR.WA and LONN.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.