DaVita holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and growth adding further support. Convatec does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. On the market side, DaVita is in better shape — its trend is intact while Convatec's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — DaVita's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (CTEC.L: STOXX 600, DVA: Russell 1000).
Most of the lead runs through valuation, while growth helps make the separation broader. The overall score gap is 15 points in favour of DaVita Inc..
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
Most of the shared profile comes through revenue stability and capital structure.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing and operating quality both support the lead here.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for DaVita Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a trailing P/E that is 15.4 turns lower.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Valuation is the clearest driver, and growth also supports DaVita Inc.'s broader structural position.
Break down the CTEC.L vs DVA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CTEC.L and DVA 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.