The structural profiles are close, with Allfunds carrying a narrow edge on profitability. Adyen still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Allfunds is in better shape — its trend is intact while Adyen's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Allfunds's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The page question resolves through profitability, where Adyen N.V. holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours Allfunds Group plc.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
Most of the shared profile comes through margin trend 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.
The setup splits cleanly: structure favours Adyen N.V., while the price setup favours Allfunds Group plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
The profitability gap is clear, with the stronger side earning materially better operating marks.
Adyen N.V. still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though profitability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the ADYEN.AS vs ALLFG.AS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ADYEN.AS and ALLFG.AS 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.