Stanley Black & Decker holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Koninklijke Philips does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The result is anchored in growth, but profitability also reinforces the same direction. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. leads by 19 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
Most of the shared profile comes through operating margin level and recent revenue growth.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The main growth separation is very wide, driven by a meaningfully stronger expansion profile.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
Growth is the clearest driver, and profitability also supports Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.'s broader structural position.
Break down the PHIA.AS vs SWK comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how PHIA.AS and SWK 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.