Structurally, On and SharkNinja are closely matched — neither holds a meaningful edge overall. SharkNinja still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, SharkNinja carries the stronger setup — intact trend against On's broken trend.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
Stability points more clearly toward SharkNinja, Inc., while the broader score stays level overall.
This pair is matched through 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 strongest overlap appears in investment intensity and recent revenue growth.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in stability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup remains mixed because the stronger profile and the more supportive price setup do not sit on the same side.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ONON and SN each sit in their own 3.1-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The stability gap is clear, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
On the market side, SharkNinja carries the stronger trend while On's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the ONON vs SN comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ONON and SN 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.