Manhattan Associates holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and stability adding further support. Elmos Semiconductor SE still leads on valuation and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Elmos Semiconductor SE carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Manhattan Associates's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Manhattan Associates, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (ELG.DE: HDAX, MANH: Russell 1000).
The lead runs through profitability, while stability still acts as a real counterweight on the other side. Manhattan Associates, Inc. leads by 8 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
The strongest overlap appears in investment intensity and recent revenue growth.
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.
Manhattan Associates, Inc. is cheaper, but Elmos Semiconductor SE is still stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ELG.DE and MANH each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 6.8-point operating margin advantage.
There is still a strong counterforce in stability, so the lead stays clear without becoming a sweep.
The profitability lead is clear, but pricing and stability still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the ELG.DE vs MANH comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ELG.DE and MANH 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.