SEI Investments Company holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Cboe Global Markets does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — SEI Investments Company holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — SEI Investments Company's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
Profitability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. SEI Investments Company leads by 16 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
The match is driven mainly by investment intensity 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.
SEI Investments Company still looks stronger, and the price setup does not materially undermine that lead.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CBOE and SEIC each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 10.9-point ROIC advantage.
Stability is the one area where Cboe Global Markets, Inc. still pushes back materially — it is the steadier name on this dimension, which keeps the result from reading as one-way.
Profitability is the clearest driver, and growth also supports SEI Investments Company's broader structural position.
Break down the CBOE vs SEIC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CBOE and SEIC 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.