Wärtsilä Oyj Abp holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and stability adding further support. Flowserve still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. The overall score gap is 11 points in favour of Wärtsilä Oyj Abp.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. FLS and WRT1V.HE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Flowserve and Wärtsilä Oyj Abp 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 profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Wärtsilä Oyj Abp still looks cheaper, even though Flowserve Corporation remains structurally stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 65-point ROIC advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Flowserve, with a forward P/E that is 6.3 turns lower there.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with stability adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the FLS vs WRT1V.HE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how FLS and WRT1V.HE 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.