Fortive holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and profitability. Holcim still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Fortive holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Fortive'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 (FTV: Russell 1000, HOLN.SW: STOXX 600).
The clearest separation starts in valuation, with stability adding a second layer of support. Fortive Corporation leads by 11 points on the overall comparison score.
This comparison is anchored in 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.
Most of the shared profile comes through revenue stability and margin consistency.
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.
The two profiles are relatively close, but the price setup still leans toward Fortive Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where FTV and HOLN.SW each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a trailing P/E that is 70 turns lower.
A meaningful counterforce remains in profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking completely one-sided.
The valuation edge is decisive, even though current pricing and profitability still lean somewhat toward Holcim AG.
Break down the FTV vs HOLN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how FTV 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.
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.