ISS A/S holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and stability adding further support. AECOM still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, ISS A/S is in better shape — its trend is intact while AECOM's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — ISS A/S's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (ACM: Russell 1000, ISS.CO: STOXX 600).
The lead is spread across growth and stability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in investment intensity and margin consistency.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The price setup looks more supportive for ISS A/S, but AECOM still has the stronger structure.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ACM and ISS.CO each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
AECOM still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with stability adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the ACM vs ISS.CO comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ACM and ISS.CO 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.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
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.