The structural profiles are close, with Dover carrying a narrow edge on profitability. KONE Oyj still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Dover holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Dover'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 (DOV: Russell 1000, KNEBV.HE: STOXX 600).
On profitability, the clearer edge sits with KONE Oyj, while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. DOV and KNEBV.HE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Dover and KONE Oyj each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against KONE Oyj.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where DOV and KNEBV.HE each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability gap is wide, with the stronger side earning materially better operating marks.
KONE Oyj still has the more coherent overall profile, which keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
The lead is built on both profitability and growth — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the DOV vs KNEBV.HE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how DOV and KNEBV.HE 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.