The structural profiles are close, with Garmin carrying a narrow edge on growth. Nemetschek SE still leads on growth and profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (GRMN: Russell 1000, NEM.DE: HDAX).
The page question resolves through growth, where Nemetschek SE holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours Garmin Ltd..
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
The match is driven mainly by capital structure and revenue growth trajectory.
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.
Nemetschek SE occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Garmin Ltd. still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where GRMN and NEM.DE each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
There is still a strong counterforce in profitability, so the lead stays clear without becoming a sweep.
The lead is built on both growth and valuation — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the GRMN vs NEM.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how GRMN and NEM.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.