The structural profiles are close, with Hermès International Société en commandite par actions carrying a narrow edge on profitability. Compagnie Financière Richemont still leads on growth and valuation, 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.
The lead is spread across profitability and stability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap.
Both operate in: Luxury Goods
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CFR.SW and RMS.PA share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how CFR.SW and RMS.PA each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Hermès International Société en commandite par actions occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Compagnie Financière Richemont SA 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 19.2-point operating margin advantage.
Earnings growth also leans the other way, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CFR.SW vs RMS.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CFR.SW and RMS.PA 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.