The structural profiles are close, with Valmet Oyj carrying a narrow edge on valuation. Sandvik AB (publ) still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Sandvik AB (publ) carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Valmet Oyj's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Valmet Oyj, 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 STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
The comparison is mainly decided in valuation, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. SAND.ST and VALMT.HE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Sandvik AB (publ) and Valmet Oyj each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Valmet Oyj and Sandvik AB (publ) look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Valmet Oyj.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where SAND.ST and VALMT.HE each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 14.8 turns lower.
Growth still leans toward Sandvik AB (publ), so the lead is real without reading as one-way.
The main read on valuation is clearer than the broader score gap.
Break down the SAND.ST vs VALMT.HE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how SAND.ST and VALMT.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.