Adyen holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. ageas / still leads on valuation and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward ageas /, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Adyen, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. Adyen N.V. 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 shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and revenue stability.
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.
Adyen N.V. still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for ageas SA/NV.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 40-point operating margin advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for ageas /, with a forward P/E that is 10.1 turns lower there.
The profitability edge is decisive, even though current pricing and valuation still lean somewhat toward ageas SA/NV.
Break down the ADYEN.AS vs AGS.BR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ADYEN.AS and AGS.BR 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.