PACCAR holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and stability. Kuehne + Nagel International still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, PACCAR is in better shape — its trend is intact while Kuehne + Nagel International's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — PACCAR's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest separation starts in valuation, but stability adds another real layer to the result. The overall score gap is 11 points in favour of PACCAR Inc.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in margin trend and investment intensity.
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.
PACCAR Inc and Kuehne + Nagel International AG look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward PACCAR Inc.
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 5.3 turns lower.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 9-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
The lead is built on both valuation and stability — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the KNIN.SW vs PCAR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how KNIN.SW and PCAR 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.