Rheinmetall holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and stability. SUSS MicroTec SE still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, SUSS MicroTec SE carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Rheinmetall's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Rheinmetall, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the HDAX universe, making them directly comparable.
This is not just a one-metric split: both growth and stability materially support the lead.
These two companies are linked by measured 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.
The match is driven mainly by capital structure and revenue growth trajectory.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup splits cleanly: structure favours Rheinmetall AG, while the price setup favours SUSS MicroTec SE.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where RHM.DE and SMHN.DE each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for SUSS MicroTec SE, with a trailing P/E that is 19.9 turns lower there.
The lead is built on both growth and stability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the RHM.DE vs SMHN.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how RHM.DE and SMHN.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.