Azimut S.p.A leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Equitable does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. On the market side, Azimut S.p.A is in better shape — its trend is intact while Equitable's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Azimut S.p.A'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 (AZM.MI: STOXX 600, EQH: Russell 1000).
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. The overall score gap is 19 points in favour of Azimut Holding S.p.A..
Both operate in: Asset Management
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. AZM.MI and EQH share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Azimut S.p.A and Equitable each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Structure clearly favours Azimut Holding S.p.A., even though current pricing leans the other way.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
Where AZM.MI and EQH each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 21.4-point operating margin advantage.
Equitable Holdings, Inc. still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
The main edge on profitability is clear, but the broader result still comes with a real counterweight.
Break down the AZM.MI vs EQH comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AZM.MI and EQH 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.