Cboe Global Markets holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Moody's still leads on growth and 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 Moody's'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.
The comparison is mainly decided in stability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. leads by 9 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Financial Data & Stock Exchanges
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CBOE and MCO share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Cboe Global Markets and Moody's each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in stability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 4.5-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
Stability settles the main question, even though profitability still keeps the broader picture from looking fully clean.
Break down the CBOE vs MCO comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CBOE and MCO 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.