Structurally, Apollo Global Management and ASR Nederland are closely matched — neither holds a meaningful edge overall. ASR Nederland still leads on profitability and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward ASR Nederland, which does not confirm the structural lead.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Profitability points more clearly toward ASR Nederland N.V., while the broader score stays level overall.
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 match is driven mainly by investment intensity and recent revenue growth.
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.
ASR Nederland N.V. still looks cheaper, even though Apollo Global Management, Inc. remains structurally stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Return on equity adds support too, with a 9.1-point advantage.
ASR Nederland N.V. still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though profitability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the APO vs ASRNL.AS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how APO and ASRNL.AS 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.