Celsius leads structurally, with growth as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. In the market, Coherent carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Celsius's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Celsius, 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 Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
Growth remains the main source of distance in the comparison. The overall score gap is 11 points in favour of Celsius Holdings, Inc..
These two companies are linked by measured 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.
The match is driven mainly by capital structure and operating margin level.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
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.
Growth adds another layer to the lead, with a very wide gap in revenue growth between the two companies.
On the market side, Coherent carries the stronger trend while Celsius's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The main edge on growth is clear, but the broader result still comes with a real counterweight.
Break down the CELH vs COHR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CELH and COHR 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.