Compagnie Financière Richemont holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and valuation. Hilton Worldwide still leads on profitability and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Hilton Worldwide carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Compagnie Financière Richemont's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Compagnie Financière Richemont, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The comparison is mainly decided in growth, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. The overall score gap is 12 points in favour of Compagnie Financière Richemont SA.
This comparison is anchored in 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.
The strongest overlap appears in margin consistency and capital structure.
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.
Compagnie Financière Richemont SA looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Profitability still favours Hilton Worldwide, with a 24.1-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
The lead is built on both growth and valuation — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the CFR.SW vs HLT comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CFR.SW and HLT 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.