Norsk Hydro ASA holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and stability adding further support. CRH still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Norsk Hydro ASA is in better shape — its trend is intact while CRH's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Norsk Hydro ASA'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 (CRH: Russell 1000, NHY.OL: STOXX 600).
The lead is spread across growth and stability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. Norsk Hydro ASA leads by 9 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured 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.
The match is driven mainly by margin consistency and recent revenue growth.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
More than one operating dimension supports the result here.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Norsk Hydro ASA is cheaper, but CRH plc is still stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CRH and NHY.OL each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Stability still reinforces the same direction, which makes the lead look broader across the profile.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with stability adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CRH vs NHY.OL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CRH and NHY.OL 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.