The structural profiles are close, with Elmos Semiconductor SE carrying a narrow edge on valuation. Ferrari still leads on growth and profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Elmos Semiconductor SE is in better shape — its trend is intact while Ferrari's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Elmos Semiconductor SE's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The lead is spread across valuation and stability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap.
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 capital structure and recent revenue growth.
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 Ferrari N.V..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 9.2 turns lower.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 9.6-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
Valuation is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the ELG.DE vs RACE.MI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ELG.DE and RACE.MI 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.