Sodexo holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and growth adding further support. RTX still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, RTX carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Sodexo's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Sodexo, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest separation starts in valuation, but growth adds another real layer to the result. The overall score gap is 15 points in favour of Sodexo S.A..
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
The match is driven mainly by revenue stability and investment intensity.
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.
The two profiles are relatively close, but the price setup still leans toward Sodexo S.A..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 15.8 turns lower.
On the market side, RTX carries the stronger trend while Sodexo's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Valuation is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the RTX vs SW.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how RTX and SW.PA 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.