25 companies with strong revenue growth dynamics comparable to Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (IBKR) — identified by structural trajectory analysis, not sector labels alone.
Score range used for matching: 40–64
Ranked by closeness of growth score to IBKR's reference score of 52. Delta shown in parentheses.
| # | Company | Growth Trajectory | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 |
ED · Utilities
similar →
|
52(+0) |
Analysis |
| #2 |
CSX · Industrials
similar →
|
52(+0) |
Analysis |
| #3 |
MT.AS · Basic Materials
similar →
|
52(+0) |
Analysis |
| #4 |
EVD.DE · Communication Services
similar →
|
52(+0) |
Analysis |
| #5 |
PAYX · Technology
similar →
|
52(+0) |
Analysis |
| #6 |
EG · Financial Services
similar →
|
52(+0) |
Analysis |
| #7 |
FERG · Industrials
similar →
|
52(+0) |
Analysis |
| #8 |
LTMC.MI · Consumer Cyclical
similar →
|
52(+0) |
Analysis |
| #9 |
UNM · Financial Services
similar →
|
52(+0) |
Analysis |
| #10 |
JEN.DE · Technology
similar →
|
52(+0) |
Analysis |
| #11 |
RRX · Industrials
similar →
|
52(+0) |
Analysis |
| #12 |
LI.PA · Real Estate
similar →
|
51(−1) |
Analysis |
| #13 |
ISP.MI · Financial Services
similar →
|
53(+1) |
Analysis |
| #14 |
LMP.L · Real Estate
similar →
|
53(+1) |
IBKR vs LMP.L Analysis |
| #15 |
AEE · Utilities
similar →
|
53(+1) |
Analysis |
| #16 |
TLX.DE · Financial Services
similar →
|
53(+1) |
Analysis |
| #17 |
CABK.MC · Financial Services
similar →
|
53(+1) |
Analysis |
| #18 |
NEM · Basic Materials
similar →
|
51(−1) |
Analysis |
| #19 |
TEN.MI · Energy
similar →
|
51(−1) |
Analysis |
| #20 |
STERV.HE · Consumer Cyclical
similar →
|
51(−1) |
Analysis |
Interactive peer comparison, trajectory view and live data for Interactive Brokers Group, Inc..
Trajectory similarity is rule-based and descriptive — not investment advice. Companies are matched by score proximity on a single dimension; this does not imply equivalence across all financial characteristics. Based on peer-relative structural scores in the AssetNext universe.
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.