Barratt Redrow holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across stability and valuation. 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. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (BTRW.L: STOXX 600, MTSI: Russell 1000).
On stability, the clearer edge sits with MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc., while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
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.
Barratt Redrow plc and MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Barratt Redrow plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
On the market side, MACOM Technology Solutions carries the stronger trend while Barratt Redrow's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The lead is built on both stability and valuation — though stability still provides a counterweight.
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.
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.