D'Ieteren holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Compass still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Compass carries the stronger setup — intact trend against D'Ieteren's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with D'Ieteren, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
Profitability drives the lead, while growth keeps the result from looking one-sided. D'Ieteren Group SA leads by 10 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity points to a meaningful structural match, though not a tight one.
The match is driven mainly by investment intensity 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.
D'Ieteren Group SA and Compass Group PLC look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward D'Ieteren Group SA.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CPG.L and DIE.BR each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 13.8-point ROIC advantage.
Earnings growth also leans toward CPG.L, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
The profitability edge is decisive, even though current pricing and growth still lean somewhat toward Compass Group PLC.
Break down the CPG.L vs DIE.BR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CPG.L and DIE.BR 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.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
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.