Hannover Rück SE holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Swiss Re still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Hannover Rück SE holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Hannover Rück SE's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Growth still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. Hannover Rück SE leads by 10 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Insurance - Reinsurance
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. HNR1.DE and SREN.SW share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Hannover Rück SE and Swiss Re each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Hannover Rück SE is stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for Swiss Re AG.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
Hannover Rück SE also shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which makes the lead look less detached from the underlying business picture.
The growth edge is decisive, even though current pricing and profitability still lean somewhat toward Swiss Re AG.
Break down the HNR1.DE vs SREN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how HNR1.DE and SREN.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.
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.