Aeroports de Paris holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and stability. Iron Mountain still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Iron Mountain carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Aeroports de Paris's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Aeroports de Paris, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
This is not just a one-metric split: both valuation and stability materially support the lead. Aeroports de Paris SA leads by 16 points on the overall comparison score.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
The strongest overlap appears in margin consistency and revenue stability.
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 structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Iron Mountain Incorporated.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 23.7 turns lower.
Iron Mountain Incorporated still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
The lead is built on both valuation and stability — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the ADP.PA vs IRM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ADP.PA and IRM 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.