LyondellBasell Industries leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Croda International still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Valuation still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The overall score gap is 12 points in favour of LyondellBasell Industries N.V..
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CRDA.L and LYB share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Croda International and LyondellBasell Industries each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Croda International Plc is stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for LyondellBasell Industries N.V..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
The peer-relative valuation gap is very wide, with the stronger side also looking meaningfully cheaper.
A meaningful counterforce remains in growth, which keeps the comparison from looking completely one-sided.
The valuation edge is decisive, even though current pricing and growth still lean somewhat toward Croda International Plc.
Break down the CRDA.L vs LYB comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CRDA.L and LYB 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.