American Water Works Company holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and profitability. Iron Mountain still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Iron Mountain carries the stronger setup — intact trend against American Water Works Company's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with American Water Works Company, 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 profitability materially support the lead. The overall score gap is 23 points in favour of American Water Works Company, Inc..
This pair is matched through 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 clearest structural overlap shows up in revenue stability 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.
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 17.4 turns lower.
Growth still leans toward Iron Mountain Incorporated, so the lead is real without reading as one-way.
The lead is built on both valuation and profitability — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the AWK vs IRM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AWK 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.