Admiral leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Xylem still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Admiral holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Admiral's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in profitability. Admiral Group plc leads by 10 points on the overall comparison score.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
The match is driven mainly by capital structure and revenue growth trajectory.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for Admiral Group plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 35-point ROIC advantage.
Earnings growth also leans the other way, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
Profitability settles the comparison, while pricing and growth keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the ADM.L vs XYL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ADM.L and XYL 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.