Which is better, EVO.ST or RMS.PA?

On the Buffett-Fit framework, Hermès International Société en commandite par actions (RMS.PA) currently grades higher than EVO.ST — 79/100 (B grade) vs 74/100 (B). That said, "better" depends on which framework you trust — EVO.ST wins on Peter Lynch, Joel Greenblatt, and Terry Smith; RMS.PA wins on Warren Buffett, Benjamin Graham, Philip Fisher, and Charlie Munger. The full pillar breakdown is on this page.

Should I buy EVO.ST or RMS.PA?

This page is an educational comparison, not investment advice. Both EVO.ST and RMS.PA are graded against the same Buffett 5-pillar framework (moat, earnings durability, management quality, financial health, valuation) plus six other documented investor frameworks. Read the side-by-side breakdown to see which one matches the criteria you care about most — and always do your own research before making any investment decision.

Is EVO.ST better than RMS.PA for value investing?

On the Buffett-style value-investing framework, RMS.PA currently grades higher — 79/100 vs 74/100, a 5-point gap. The gap is driven by which pillars each stock passes; the table on this page shows moat, durability, management, financial health, and valuation side-by-side.

What's the difference between EVO.ST and RMS.PA on Warren Buffett's framework?

Both stocks are evaluated on the same five pillars: economic moat (durable competitive advantage), earnings durability (consistent profitability), management quality (capital allocation), financial health (conservative balance sheet), and valuation (margin of safety). EVO.ST currently scores 74/100 (B grade); RMS.PA scores 79/100 (B grade). The "Where each wins" section on this page breaks down which pillar each stock dominates.

Which has the stronger moat, EVO.ST or RMS.PA?

Moat strength is one of the five pillars in the Buffett-Fit score on this page. EVO.ST and RMS.PA are each scored on ROIC sustainability, gross-margin durability, and qualitative signals like brand strength, switching costs, network effects, and regulatory barriers. The pillar breakdown on this page shows the moat sub-score side-by-side so you can see which one has the more durable competitive advantage.

Which is more undervalued, EVO.ST or RMS.PA?

Valuation is one of the five Buffett-Fit pillars on this page. Both stocks are scored on owner-earnings yield, price-to-intrinsic-value vs the underlying compounding rate, and the margin of safety relative to a conservative DCF. The valuation sub-score in the table below tells you which one currently trades at a more attractive price relative to its underlying business quality.

Are EVO.ST and RMS.PA both Consumer Cyclical stocks?

Yes — both Evolution AB (publ) (EVO.ST) and Hermès International Société en commandite par actions (RMS.PA) operate in the Consumer Cyclical sector. That makes this a direct sector-peer comparison, which is the apples-to-apples way to use the Buffett-Fit framework: the score weighs each stock against its sector's specific quality and valuation benchmarks (sector-relative bonus), so the cross-stock comparison isn't distorted by inter-sector base-rate differences.

Is this EVO.ST vs RMS.PA comparison investment advice?

No. This page is an educational pattern-match against documented public frameworks (Buffett, Graham, Fisher, Lynch, Greenblatt, Munger, Smith), not personalised investment advice. The scores reflect how closely each stock matches each framework's documented criteria — they are not buy/hold/sell recommendations. Always do your own research and consult a licensed financial adviser for personalised advice.

Stock comparison

Evolution AB (publ)

EVO.ST$132.74BConsumer Discretionary Market cap, Sector

Hermès International Société en commandite par actions

RMS.PA$176.07BConsumer Discretionary Market cap, Sector

Overall winner

Hermès International Société en commandite par actions

EVO.ST 34 RMS.PA

Wins on the combined sum of fit scores across all four strategies. Per-strategy breakdown below.

Scored across Buffett, Graham, Lynch and Greenblatt - plus a side-by-side metric table covering valuation, quality, growth and balance sheet.

Fit scores by strategy

EVO.ST3wins

4winsRMS.PA

Warren Buffett

74B

B79

Benjamin Graham

82B

A90

Philip Fisher

80B

B84

Peter Lynch

73B

C69

Joel Greenblatt

68C

C61

Charlie Munger

84B

A86

Terry Smith

87A

A85

Side-by-side metrics

Metric	EVO.ST	RMS.PA
Market cap	$132.74B	$176.07B Winner
P/E (TTM)	133.3x	38.1x Winner
EV/EBIT	112.5x	23.8x Winner
ROIC (TTM)	23.85%	24.18% Winner
Gross margin	Winner: 102.79%	71.11%
Net margin	Winner: 51.39%	28.27%
Revenue CAGR 5y	Winner: 12.36%	11.31%
EPS CAGR 5y	10.54%	16.93% Winner
Debt / Equity	Winner: 0.0x	0.1x
Dividend yield	-	-

Where each one wins

The metrics with the biggest gap between the two - sorted so the most decisive edges read first.

EVO.ST leads on

Debt / Equity0.0xvs 0.1x+82%
Net margin51.39%vs 28.27%+45%
Gross margin102.79%vs 71.11%+31%
Revenue CAGR 5y12.36%vs 11.31%+8%

RMS.PA leads on

EV/EBIT23.8xvs 112.5x+79%
P/E (TTM)38.1xvs 133.3x+71%
EPS CAGR 5y16.93%vs 10.54%+38%
Market cap$176.07Bvs $132.74B+25%

More like EVO.ST

EVO.ST vs GRGD.TO EVO.ST vs GAW.L EVO.ST vs WINA EVO.ST vs 4165.SR

More like RMS.PA

RMS.PA vs GRGD.TO RMS.PA vs GAW.L RMS.PA vs WINA RMS.PA vs 4165.SR

Read the full Buffett-Brain analysis for EVO.ST Read the full Buffett-Brain analysis for RMS.PA

Related on invest-like

Strongest Moat Highest ROIC Warren Buffett strategy Economic Moat

Key terms in this analysis

ROIC Free Cash Flow (FCF)Economic Moat P/E Ratio Margin of Safety Quality Score

Educational tool. Fit scores are deterministic projections from public financials onto each investor's published criteria - not personal recommendations or advice.

Side-by-side metrics

Metric	EVO.ST	RMS.PA
Market cap	$132.74B	$176.07B Winner
P/E (TTM)	133.3x	38.1x Winner
EV/EBIT	112.5x	23.8x Winner
ROIC (TTM)	23.85%	24.18% Winner
Gross margin	Winner: 102.79%	71.11%
Net margin	Winner: 51.39%	28.27%
Revenue CAGR 5y	Winner: 12.36%	11.31%
EPS CAGR 5y	10.54%	16.93% Winner
Debt / Equity	Winner: 0.0x	0.1x
Dividend yield	-	-

Where each one wins

The metrics with the biggest gap between the two - sorted so the most decisive edges read first.

EVO.ST leads on

Debt / Equity0.0xvs 0.1x+82%
Net margin51.39%vs 28.27%+45%
Gross margin102.79%vs 71.11%+31%
Revenue CAGR 5y12.36%vs 11.31%+8%

RMS.PA leads on

EV/EBIT23.8xvs 112.5x+79%
P/E (TTM)38.1xvs 133.3x+71%
EPS CAGR 5y16.93%vs 10.54%+38%
Market cap$176.07Bvs $132.74B+25%