The structural profiles are close, with AYV.PA carrying a narrow edge on stability. Xylem still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, AYV.PA is in better shape — its trend is intact while Xylem's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — AYV.PA's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (AYV.PA: STOXX 600, XYL: Russell 1000).
Stability points more clearly toward Xylem Inc., even if the broader score still leans toward AYV.PA.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
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 stability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for AYV.PA.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where AYV.PA and XYL each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The stability gap is clear, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Xylem Inc. still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the AYV.PA vs XYL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AYV.PA and XYL 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.