The structural profiles are close, with EMCOR carrying a narrow edge on growth. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. On the market side, EMCOR is in better shape — its trend is intact while Bilfinger SE's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — EMCOR'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 (EME: Russell 1000, GBF.DE: HDAX).
The lead is spread across growth and profitability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap.
Both operate in: Engineering & Construction
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. EME and GBF.DE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how EMCOR and Bilfinger SE each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
EMCOR Group, Inc. is stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for Bilfinger SE.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where EME and GBF.DE each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 21.2-point ROIC advantage.
The lead is built on both growth and profitability, making it broader than a single-dimension result.
Break down the EME vs GBF.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how EME and GBF.DE 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.