Teradyne holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and valuation. Owens Corning still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Teradyne is in better shape — its trend is intact while Owens Corning's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Teradyne's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
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.
The result is anchored in growth, but profitability also reinforces the same direction. Teradyne, Inc. leads by 14 points on the overall comparison score.
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 clearest structural overlap shows up in capital structure and revenue growth trajectory.
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.
Teradyne, Inc. is cheaper, but Owens Corning is still stronger.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where OC and TER each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Growth adds another layer to the lead, with a very wide gap in revenue growth between the two companies.
A meaningful counterforce remains in valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking completely one-sided.
The growth edge is decisive, even though current pricing and valuation still lean somewhat toward Owens Corning.
Break down the OC vs TER comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how OC and TER 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.