The structural profiles are close, with Arch Capital carrying a narrow edge on valuation. Zurich Insurance still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
This is not just a one-metric split: both valuation and stability materially support the lead.
Both operate in: Insurance - Diversified
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ACGL and ZURN.SW share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Arch Capital and Zurich Insurance each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for Arch Capital Group Ltd..
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 3.8 turns lower.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 117-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
The lead is built on both valuation and profitability — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the ACGL vs ZURN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ACGL and ZURN.SW 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.