Allfunds holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. VEND.OL still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Allfunds is in better shape — its trend is intact while VEND.OL'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 clearest score difference appears in profitability. The overall score gap is 9 points in favour of Allfunds Group plc.
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 strongest overlap appears in recent revenue growth and investment intensity.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The price setup looks more supportive for VEND.OL, but Allfunds Group plc still has the stronger structure.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 18-point operating margin advantage.
VEND.OL still looks less cycle-sensitive — that keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the ALLFG.AS vs VEND.OL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ALLFG.AS and VEND.OL 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.