Hologic holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and stability adding further support. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Hologic holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Hologic's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in profitability. Hologic, Inc. leads by 8 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 clearest structural overlap shows up in recent revenue growth and margin trend.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup splits cleanly: structure favours Hologic, Inc., while the price setup favours Qiagen N.V..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a stronger profitability profile.
Market confirmation also leans toward Hologic, Inc., which makes the lead look better backed by actual market behaviour.
Profitability is the clearest driver, and stability also supports Hologic, Inc.'s broader structural position.
Break down the HOLX vs QIA.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how HOLX and QIA.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.