Georg Fischer holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Holcim does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. 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. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
The result is anchored in valuation, but profitability also reinforces the same direction. The overall score gap is 22 points in favour of Georg Fischer AG.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
Most of the shared profile comes through recent revenue growth and margin consistency.
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.
The two profiles are relatively close, but the price setup still leans toward Georg Fischer AG.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where GF.SW and HOLN.SW each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The main spread comes from a meaningfully cheaper peer-relative valuation.
Holcim AG still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
Valuation is the clearest driver, and profitability also supports Georg Fischer AG's broader structural position.
Break down the GF.SW vs HOLN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how GF.SW 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.