Ford Motor Company holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and profitability. Ferrari still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Ford Motor Company is in better shape — its trend is intact while Ferrari's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Ford Motor Company's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (F: S&P 500, RACE.MI: STOXX 600).
This is not just a one-metric split: both growth and valuation materially support the lead. The overall score gap is 13 points in favour of Ford Motor Company.
Both operate in: Auto Manufacturers
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. F and RACE.MI share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Ford Motor Company and Ferrari each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Ford Motor Company looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where F and RACE.MI each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Profitability still favours Ferrari, with a 23.7-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
Growth settles the main question, even though profitability still keeps the broader picture from looking fully clean.
Break down the F vs RACE.MI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how F and RACE.MI 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.