Fresenius SE KGaA holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Fresenius Medical Care still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Fresenius SE KGaA holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Fresenius SE KGaA's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the DAX 40 universe, making them directly comparable.
The clearest score difference appears in growth. Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA leads by 16 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Medical Care Facilities
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. FME.DE and FRE.DE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Fresenius Medical Care and Fresenius SE KGaA 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.
Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Fresenius Medical Care AG still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where FME.DE and FRE.DE each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Fresenius Medical Care, with a trailing P/E that is 3.3 turns lower there.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the FME.DE vs FRE.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how FME.DE and FRE.DE 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.