Holcim holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and valuation adding further support. FLSmidth A/S still leads on valuation and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, FLSmidth A/S carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Holcim's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Holcim, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in growth. Holcim AG leads by 8 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in revenue stability and investment intensity.
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.
Holcim AG occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although FLSmidth & Co. A/S still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The main growth separation is very wide, driven by a meaningfully stronger expansion profile.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for FLSmidth A/S, with a trailing P/E that is 55 turns lower there.
The growth edge is decisive, even though current pricing and valuation still lean somewhat toward FLSmidth & Co. A/S.
Break down the FLS.CO vs HOLN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how FLS.CO and HOLN.SW 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.