Assurant holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Tyler Technologies still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Assurant holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Assurant's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The page question resolves through stability, where Tyler Technologies, Inc. holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours Assurant, Inc..
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in investment intensity and revenue stability.
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.
Assurant, Inc. and Tyler Technologies, Inc. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Assurant, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
Volatility exposure is also lower for Assurant, Inc., which gives the lead a steadier footing.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the AIZ vs TYL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AIZ and TYL 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.