ASR Nederland holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and valuation. Beazley still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is mixed, without a decisive signal in either direction. 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.
Most of the lead runs through profitability, while growth helps make the separation broader. The overall score gap is 15 points in favour of ASR Nederland N.V..
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This is a looser trajectory match: still usable for comparison, but not especially tight.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in revenue stability and investment intensity.
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.
ASR Nederland N.V. holds the stronger structural profile, but the price setup still leans toward Beazley plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 7-point operating margin advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Beazley, with a trailing P/E that is 16.5 turns lower there.
The profitability edge is decisive, even though current pricing and valuation still lean somewhat toward Beazley plc.
Break down the ASRNL.AS vs BEZ.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ASRNL.AS and BEZ.L 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.