Compagnie Financière Richemont leads structurally, with growth as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. PulteGroup still has the edge on 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.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in growth. The overall score gap is 10 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 trend and investment intensity.
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, but the price setup still looks more supportive for PulteGroup, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for PulteGroup, with a forward P/E that is 11.8 turns lower there.
The growth lead is clear, but pricing and valuation still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the CFR.SW vs PHM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CFR.SW and PHM 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.