Barratt Redrow holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and stability adding further support. MACOM Technology Solutions still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, MACOM Technology Solutions carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Barratt Redrow's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Barratt Redrow, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Valuation drives the lead, while stability keeps the result from looking one-sided. The overall score gap is 14 points in favour of Barratt Redrow plc.
These two companies are linked by measured 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 match is driven mainly by recent revenue growth and margin trend.
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 structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 33 turns lower.
Stability still tilts materially toward MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc., which stops the result from looking dominant across the whole profile.
The valuation edge is decisive, even though current pricing and stability still lean somewhat toward MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc..
Break down the BTRW.L vs MTSI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BTRW.L and MTSI 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.