Glencore holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and profitability. Wienerberger still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Glencore is in better shape — its trend is intact while Wienerberger's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Glencore'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 STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
This is not just a one-metric split: both growth and valuation materially support the lead. The overall score gap is 21 points in favour of Glencore plc.
This pair is matched through 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 strongest overlap appears in margin trend 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.
Glencore plc looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where GLEN.L and WIE.VI each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Growth adds another layer to the lead, with a very wide gap in revenue growth between the two companies.
Profitability still leans toward Wienerberger AG, so the lead is real without reading as one-way.
The growth lead is decisive, but profitability still runs counter to it — the result is clear, not entirely one-sided.
Break down the GLEN.L vs WIE.VI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how GLEN.L and WIE.VI 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.