Ferrari holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Tesla still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward Tesla, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Ferrari, 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 (RACE.MI: STOXX 600, TSLA: Nasdaq 100).
Growth points more clearly toward Tesla, Inc., even if the broader score still leans toward Ferrari N.V..
Both operate in: Auto Manufacturers
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. RACE.MI and TSLA share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Ferrari and Tesla each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Tesla, Inc. still looks cheaper, even though Ferrari N.V. remains structurally stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where RACE.MI and TSLA 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.
Tesla still carries more constructive momentum, which offsets part of Ferrari's structural lead.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the RACE.MI vs TSLA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how RACE.MI and TSLA 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.