Aviva holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and profitability. Aegon still leads on valuation and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Aegon carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Aviva's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Aviva, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
The result is anchored in growth, but profitability also reinforces the same direction. Aviva plc leads by 23 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Insurance - Diversified
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. AGN.AS and AV.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Aegon and Aviva each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Aviva plc is cheaper, but Aegon Ltd. is still stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
On the market side, Aegon carries the stronger trend while Aviva's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The lead is built on both growth and profitability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the AGN.AS vs AV.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AGN.AS and AV.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.
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.