Warehouses De Pauw holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Edenred SE still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward Edenred SE, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Warehouses De Pauw, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
Growth still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The overall score gap is 8 points in favour of Warehouses De Pauw SA.
This pair is matched through 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 strongest overlap appears in revenue growth trajectory and capital structure.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Warehouses De Pauw SA looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where EDEN.PA and WDP.BR 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.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 77-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
The growth lead is decisive, but profitability still runs counter to it — the result is clear, not entirely one-sided.
Break down the EDEN.PA vs WDP.BR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how EDEN.PA and WDP.BR 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.