International Flavors & Fragrances holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and growth. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — International Flavors & Fragrances holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — International Flavors & Fragrances'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 (IFF: S&P 500, IMCD.AS: STOXX 600).
This is not just a one-metric split: both valuation and growth materially support the lead.
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. IFF and IMCD.AS share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how IFF and IMCD each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing and operating quality both support the lead here.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. and IMCD N.V. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward International Flavors & Fragrances Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where IFF and IMCD.AS each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a trailing P/E that is 3.5 turns lower.
Growth adds another layer of support rather than leaving the result tied to valuation alone.
The lead is built on both valuation and growth, making it broader than a single-dimension result.
Break down the IFF vs IMCD.AS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how IFF and IMCD.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.