Hasbro holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and profitability. Illumina still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Illumina carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Hasbro's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Hasbro, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
The lead is spread across growth and valuation, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. Hasbro, Inc. leads by 10 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
The strongest overlap appears in margin trend and capital structure.
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.
Hasbro, Inc. looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where HAS and ILMN each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 21.4-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
The growth edge is decisive, but profitability still pushes back — the result holds, but not without a real counterweight.
Break down the HAS vs ILMN comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how HAS and ILMN 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.