Epiroc AB (publ) holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and profitability. Indutrade AB (publ) still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Epiroc AB (publ) is in better shape — its trend is intact while Indutrade AB (publ)'s trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Epiroc AB (publ)'s lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
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.
The clearest separation starts in growth, but profitability adds another real layer to the result. The overall score gap is 26 points in favour of Epiroc AB (publ).
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.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and recent revenue growth.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
More than one operating dimension supports the result here.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Epiroc AB (publ) holds the stronger structural profile, but the price setup still leans toward Indutrade AB (publ).
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Indutrade AB (publ), with a forward P/E that is 10.8 turns lower there.
The lead is built on both growth and profitability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the EPI-A.ST vs INDT.ST comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how EPI-A.ST and INDT.ST 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.