SGS holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Clean Harbors does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. In the market, Clean Harbors carries the stronger setup — intact trend against SGS's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with SGS, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest score difference appears in profitability. SGS SA leads by 24 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
The strongest overlap appears in recent revenue growth and margin consistency.
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.
SGS SA looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 12-point ROIC advantage.
On the market side, Clean Harbors carries the stronger trend while SGS's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Profitability is the clearest driver, and growth also supports SGS SA's broader structural position.
Break down the CLH vs SGSN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CLH and SGSN.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.
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.