The structural profiles are close, with Lumentum carrying a narrow edge on valuation. Eurazeo SE still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Lumentum is in better shape — its trend is intact while Eurazeo SE's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Lumentum'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 (LITE: Russell 1000, RF.PA: STOXX 600).
On valuation, the clearer edge sits with Eurazeo SE, while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
The strongest overlap appears in recent revenue growth.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Lumentum Holdings Inc. still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for Eurazeo SE.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
Where LITE and RF.PA each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The peer-relative valuation gap is very wide, with the stronger side also looking meaningfully cheaper.
Eurazeo SE still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
The lead is built on both valuation and profitability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the LITE vs RF.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how LITE and RF.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.
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.