The structural profiles are close, with Kinder Morgan carrying a narrow edge on stability. Koninklijke Vopak still leads on profitability and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest separation starts in stability, but growth adds another real layer to the result.
Both operate in: Oil & Gas Midstream
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. KMI and VPK.AS share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Kinder Morgan and Koninklijke Vopak 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.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. looks stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for Koninklijke Vopak N.V..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Koninklijke Vopak, with a forward P/E that is 11.4 turns lower there.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though profitability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the KMI vs VPK.AS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how KMI and VPK.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.
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.