Evonik Industries holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and profitability. LyondellBasell Industries still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward LyondellBasell Industries, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Evonik Industries, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The lead is spread across growth and profitability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. The overall score gap is 19 points in favour of Evonik Industries AG.
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. EVK.DE and LYB share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Evonik Industries and LyondellBasell Industries each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Evonik Industries AG looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
A meaningful counterforce remains in valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking completely one-sided.
The lead is built on both growth and profitability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the EVK.DE vs LYB comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how EVK.DE and LYB 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.