Flutter Entertainment holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and growth adding further support. Delivery Hero SE still has the edge on profitability, 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.
This is not just a one-metric split: both valuation and growth materially support the lead. The overall score gap is 9 points in favour of Flutter Entertainment plc.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
The match is driven mainly by operating margin level and investment intensity.
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.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for Flutter Entertainment plc.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 11.5 turns lower.
Delivery Hero SE still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Valuation is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though profitability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the DHER.DE vs FLUT comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how DHER.DE and FLUT 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.