International Consolidated Airlines holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Acciona, still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Acciona, carries the stronger setup — intact trend against International Consolidated Airlines's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with International Consolidated Airlines, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The lead is spread across profitability and growth, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. The overall score gap is 16 points in favour of International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A..
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity points to a meaningful structural match, though not a tight one.
Most of the shared profile comes through capital structure and revenue growth trajectory.
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.
International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A. looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 12.3-point operating margin advantage.
On the market side, Acciona, carries the stronger trend while International Consolidated Airlines's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the ANA.MC vs IAG.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ANA.MC and IAG.L 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.