Mapfre, holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and growth. ageas / still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
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.
Most of the lead runs through profitability, while stability helps make the separation broader. The overall score gap is 10 points in favour of Mapfre, S.A..
Both operate in: Insurance - Diversified
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. AGS.BR and MAP.MC share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how ageas / and Mapfre, 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.
Mapfre, S.A. is cheaper, but ageas SA/NV is still stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where AGS.BR and MAP.MC each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The clearest distance comes from a stronger profitability profile.
ageas / still pushes back on growth, with a 21-point revenue-growth advantage that keeps the read from becoming one-way.
The profitability lead is clear, but pricing and growth still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the AGS.BR vs MAP.MC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AGS.BR and MAP.MC 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.