Fortum Oyj holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. CNH Industrial still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Fortum Oyj is in better shape — its trend is intact while CNH Industrial's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Fortum Oyj'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. Fortum Oyj leads by 18 points on the overall comparison score.
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 recent revenue growth.
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.
Fortum Oyj occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although CNH Industrial N.V. 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 15.5-point operating margin advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for CNH Industrial, with a forward P/E that is 10.6 turns lower there.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CNH vs FORTUM.HE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CNH and FORTUM.HE 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.