Givaudan holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. LyondellBasell Industries still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, LyondellBasell Industries carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Givaudan's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Givaudan, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (GIVN.SW: STOXX 600, LYB: S&P 500).
The clearest separation starts in profitability, with stability adding a second layer of support. Givaudan SA leads by 11 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. GIVN.SW and LYB share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Givaudan and LyondellBasell Industries each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Givaudan SA holds the stronger structural profile, but the price setup still leans toward LyondellBasell Industries N.V..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
Where GIVN.SW and LYB each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 13.4-point operating margin advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for LyondellBasell Industries, with a forward P/E that is 10.7 turns lower there.
The profitability lead is clear, but pricing and valuation still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the GIVN.SW vs LYB comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how GIVN.SW and LYB 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.