UPM-Kymmene Oyj holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. ON Semiconductor does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. In the market, ON Semiconductor carries the stronger setup — intact trend against UPM-Kymmene Oyj's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with UPM-Kymmene Oyj, but the market is not currently confirming it.
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, UPM.HE: STOXX 600).
This is not just a one-metric split: both stability and valuation materially support the lead. UPM-Kymmene Oyj leads by 17 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
The match is driven mainly by capital structure and revenue stability.
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.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ON and UPM.HE each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
On the market side, ON Semiconductor carries the stronger trend while UPM-Kymmene Oyj's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Stability is the clearest driver, and valuation also supports UPM-Kymmene Oyj's broader structural position.
Break down the ON vs UPM.HE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ON and UPM.HE 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.