Fraport holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and stability. Cellnex Telecom, still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Cellnex Telecom, carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Fraport's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Fraport, but the market is not currently confirming it.
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.
The result is anchored in valuation, but profitability also reinforces the same direction. The overall score gap is 8 points in favour of Fraport AG.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
Most of the shared profile comes through recent revenue growth and margin trend.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup splits cleanly: structure favours Cellnex Telecom, S.A., while the price setup favours Fraport AG.
Valuation position uses peer-relative valuation score and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 2211 turns lower.
There is still a strong counterforce in stability, so the lead stays clear without becoming a sweep.
The valuation edge is decisive, even though current pricing and stability still lean somewhat toward Cellnex Telecom, S.A..
Break down the CLNX.MC vs FRA.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CLNX.MC and FRA.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.