The structural profiles are close, with Voestalpine carrying a narrow edge on profitability. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. On the market side, Voestalpine is in better shape — its trend is intact while Dow's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Voestalpine'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 (DOW: S&P 500, VOE.VI: STOXX 600).
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight.
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 recent revenue growth and capital structure.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for Voestalpine AG.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where DOW and VOE.VI each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 11.7-point ROIC advantage.
Dow Inc. still looks less cycle-sensitive — that keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
Profitability is the clearest driver, and growth also supports Voestalpine AG's broader structural position.
Break down the DOW vs VOE.VI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how DOW and VOE.VI 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.