Rheinmetall holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and stability adding further support. In the market, Hensoldt carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Rheinmetall's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Rheinmetall, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in profitability. The overall score gap is 14 points in favour of Rheinmetall AG.
Both operate in: Aerospace & Defense
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. HAG.DE and RHM.DE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Hensoldt and Rheinmetall 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.
The setup remains mixed because the stronger profile and the more supportive price setup do not sit on the same side.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 16-point ROIC advantage.
On the market side, Hensoldt carries the stronger trend while Rheinmetall's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Profitability is the clearest driver, and stability also supports Rheinmetall AG's broader structural position.
Break down the HAG.DE vs RHM.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how HAG.DE and RHM.DE 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.