3i Ord leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Invesco still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Invesco carries the stronger setup — intact trend against 3i Ord's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with 3i Ord, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (III.L: STOXX 600, IVZ: Russell 1000).
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. The overall score gap is 13 points in favour of 3i Group Ord.
Both operate in: Asset Management
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. III.L and IVZ share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how 3i Ord and Invesco each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
3i Group Ord and Invesco Ltd. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward 3i Group Ord.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 78-point operating margin advantage.
Invesco still pushes back on growth, with a 48-point revenue-growth advantage that keeps the read from becoming one-way.
Profitability settles the comparison, while pricing and growth keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the III.L vs IVZ comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how III.L and IVZ 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.