SCOR SE holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Koninklijke Philips does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. On the market side, SCOR SE is in better shape — its trend is intact while Koninklijke Philips's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — SCOR SE's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The lead is spread across valuation and profitability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. The overall score gap is 16 points in favour of SCOR SE.
This pair is matched through 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.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in revenue stability and operating margin level.
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.
SCOR SE still looks stronger, and the price setup does not materially undermine that lead.
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 6.9 turns lower.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Valuation is the clearest driver, and profitability also supports SCOR SE's broader structural position.
Break down the PHIA.AS vs SCR.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how PHIA.AS and SCR.PA 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.