Amundi leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Fidelity National Financial still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Amundi is in better shape — its trend is intact while Fidelity National Financial's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Amundi'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 (AMUN.PA: STOXX 600, FNF: Russell 1000).
Profitability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The overall score gap is 8 points in favour of Amundi S.A..
These two companies are linked by measured 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.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and margin consistency.
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.
Amundi S.A. is stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for Fidelity National Financial, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where AMUN.PA and FNF each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 11.7-point ROIC advantage.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. still looks less cycle-sensitive — that keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
Profitability settles the comparison, while pricing and stability keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the AMUN.PA vs FNF comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AMUN.PA and FNF 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.