The structural profiles are close, with Raymond James Financial carrying a narrow edge on growth. 3i still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Raymond James Financial holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Raymond James Financial's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
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, RJF: S&P 500).
The lead is spread across growth and stability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap.
Both operate in: Asset Management
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. III.L and RJF share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how 3i and Raymond James Financial each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Raymond James Financial, Inc. occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although 3i Group plc still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
Profitability still favours 3i, with a 78-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
The page question resolves through growth, but profitability and current pricing still keep the broader comparison from reading as fully aligned.
Break down the III.L vs RJF comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how III.L and RJF 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.