Illumina leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Koninklijke Philips still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Illumina is in better shape — its trend is intact while Koninklijke Philips's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Illumina's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (ILMN: Russell 1000, PHIA.AS: STOXX 600).
Profitability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. Illumina, Inc. leads by 9 points on the overall comparison score.
This comparison is anchored in 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.
Most of the shared profile comes through recent revenue growth and capital structure.
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 structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Koninklijke Philips N.V..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ILMN and PHIA.AS each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 12.2-point operating margin advantage.
Earnings growth also leans toward PHIA.AS, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
Profitability settles the comparison, while pricing and growth keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the ILMN vs PHIA.AS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ILMN and PHIA.AS 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.