Yara International ASA holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and stability. Georg Fischer still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Yara International ASA is in better shape — its trend is intact while Georg Fischer's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Yara International ASA's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
This is not just a one-metric split: both growth and stability materially support the lead. The overall score gap is 22 points in favour of Yara International ASA.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
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.
Yara International ASA looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
A meaningful counterforce remains in profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking completely one-sided.
The lead is built on both growth and stability — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the GF.SW vs YAR.OL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how GF.SW and YAR.OL 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.
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.