DuPont de Nemours holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Holcim does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. On the market side, DuPont de Nemours is in better shape — its trend is intact while Holcim's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — DuPont de Nemours'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 (DD: S&P 500, HOLN.SW: STOXX 600).
Most of the visible separation comes from growth. The overall score gap is 15 points in favour of DuPont de Nemours, Inc..
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
The match is driven mainly by revenue growth trajectory and margin trend.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Neither company combines the stronger profile with the cheaper valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where DD and HOLN.SW 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.
Market confirmation also leans toward DuPont de Nemours, Inc., which makes the lead look better backed by actual market behaviour.
Growth is the clearest driver, and valuation also supports DuPont de Nemours, Inc.'s broader structural position.
Break down the DD vs HOLN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how DD and HOLN.SW 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.