Apollo Global Management holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and profitability. The Carlyle still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
Valuation points more clearly toward The Carlyle Group Inc., even if the broader score still leans toward Apollo Global Management, Inc..
Both operate in: Asset Management
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. APO and CG share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Apollo Global Management and The Carlyle each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup splits cleanly: structure favours Apollo Global Management, Inc., while the price setup favours The Carlyle Group Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where APO and CG each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The peer-relative valuation gap is wide, with the stronger side also looking meaningfully cheaper.
The Carlyle Group Inc. still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
The lead is built on both valuation and profitability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the APO vs CG comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how APO and CG 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.