Big Yellow holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and profitability. Prologis still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Prologis carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Big Yellow's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Big Yellow, 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 (BYG.L: STOXX 600, PLD: Russell 1000).
The page question resolves through growth, where Prologis, Inc. holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours Big Yellow Group Plc.
Both operate in: REIT - Industrial
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. BYG.L and PLD share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Big Yellow and Prologis 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.
The price setup looks more supportive for Prologis, Inc., but Big Yellow Group Plc still has the stronger structure.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a stronger growth profile.
On the market side, Prologis carries the stronger trend while Big Yellow's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The lead is built on both growth and profitability — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the BYG.L vs PLD comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BYG.L and PLD 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.