Penumbra holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Toast still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Penumbra holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Penumbra's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Profitability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. Penumbra, Inc. leads by 10 points on the overall comparison score.
This comparison is anchored in 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 profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Penumbra, Inc. is stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for Toast, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 9.9-point operating margin advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Toast, with a forward P/E that is 35 turns lower there.
The profitability lead is clear, but pricing and valuation still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the PEN vs TOST comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how PEN and TOST 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.