OMV Aktiengesellschaft leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Holcim still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, OMV Aktiengesellschaft is in better shape — its trend is intact while Holcim's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — OMV Aktiengesellschaft'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.
The comparison is mainly decided in valuation, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. OMV Aktiengesellschaft leads by 18 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
The match is driven mainly by capital structure and recent revenue growth.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for OMV Aktiengesellschaft.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 9.6 turns lower.
OMV Aktiengesellschaft also shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which makes the lead look less detached from the underlying business picture.
The valuation lead is clear, but pricing and growth still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the HOLN.SW vs OMV.VI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how HOLN.SW and OMV.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.