The structural profiles are close, with Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche carrying a narrow edge on stability. ON Semiconductor still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. 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. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (ON: Russell 1000, P911.DE: HDAX).
The comparison is mainly decided in stability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity points to a meaningful structural match, though not a tight one.
Most of the shared profile comes through capital structure and margin consistency.
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.
Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ON and P911.DE each sit in their own 3.9-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The stability gap is wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Volatility exposure is also lower for Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, which gives the lead a steadier footing.
The main read on stability is clearer than the broader score gap.
Break down the ON vs P911.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ON and P911.DE 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.