Storebrand ASA holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. American International still leads on growth and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Storebrand ASA is in better shape — its trend is intact while American International's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Storebrand ASA's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (AIG: Russell 1000, STB.OL: STOXX 600).
Most of the separation is still concentrated in profitability. Storebrand ASA leads by 8 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through 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 revenue stability.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The price setup looks more supportive for Storebrand ASA, but American International Group, Inc. still has the stronger structure.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where AIG and STB.OL each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Return on equity adds support too, with a 6.2-point advantage.
Earnings growth also leans toward AIG, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
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 AIG vs STB.OL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AIG and STB.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.
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.