UBS holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and profitability. ABN AMRO Bank still leads on valuation and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, ABN AMRO Bank carries the stronger setup — intact trend against UBS's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with UBS, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The result is anchored in growth, but profitability also reinforces the same direction. The overall score gap is 23 points in favour of UBS Group AG.
Both operate in: Banks - Diversified
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ABN.AS and UBSG.SW share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how ABN AMRO Bank and UBS 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.
The price setup looks more supportive for UBS Group AG, but ABN AMRO Bank N.V. still has the stronger structure.
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.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for ABN AMRO Bank, with a trailing P/E that is 5.3 turns lower there.
The lead is built on both growth and profitability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the ABN.AS vs UBSG.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ABN.AS and UBSG.SW 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.
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.