CME leads structurally, with stability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. In the market, Azimut S.p.A carries the stronger setup — intact trend against CME's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with CME, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (AZM.MI: STOXX 600, CME: Russell 1000).
Stability remains the main source of distance in the comparison. The overall score gap is 10 points in favour of CME Group Inc..
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
Most of the shared profile comes through 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.
The price setup looks more supportive for CME Group Inc., but Azimut Holding S.p.A. still has the stronger structure.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where AZM.MI and CME each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The stability gap is wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
On the market side, Azimut S.p.A carries the stronger trend while CME's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Stability clearly separates the pair, while the broader read stays strong rather than one-way.
Break down the AZM.MI vs CME comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AZM.MI and CME 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.