Cboe Global Markets holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Fair Isaac still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Cboe Global Markets is in better shape — its trend is intact while Fair Isaac's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Cboe Global Markets's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
This is not just a one-metric split: both stability and growth materially support the lead. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. leads by 9 points on the overall comparison score.
This comparison is anchored in 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 clearest structural overlap shows up in investment intensity and recent revenue growth.
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.
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Profitability still favours Fair Isaac, with a 9.5-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
The stability edge is decisive, but profitability still pushes back — the result holds, but not without a real counterweight.
Break down the CBOE vs FICO comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CBOE and FICO 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.