The structural profiles are close, with Allreal carrying a narrow edge on stability. Big Yellow still leads on profitability and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Allreal is in better shape — its trend is intact while Big Yellow's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Allreal's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The result is anchored in stability, but growth also reinforces the same direction.
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.
Allreal Holding AG looks stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for Big Yellow Group Plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Profitability still favours Big Yellow, with a 22.9-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
Stability points more clearly to Allreal Holding AG, but profitability and current pricing keep the broader result mixed.
Break down the ALLN.SW vs BYG.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ALLN.SW and BYG.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.
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.