ArcelorMittal holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. LyondellBasell Industries does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. The market setup is mixed, without a decisive signal in either direction. 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 growth, with profitability adding a second layer of support. ArcelorMittal S.A. leads by 20 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
Most of the shared profile comes through operating margin level and capital structure.
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.
ArcelorMittal S.A. looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
LyondellBasell Industries N.V. still looks less cycle-sensitive — that keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
Growth is the clearest driver, and profitability also supports ArcelorMittal S.A.'s broader structural position.
Break down the LYB vs MT.AS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how LYB and MT.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.