Softcat holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. CDW still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The lead is spread across growth and profitability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. Softcat plc leads by 11 points on the overall comparison score.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in investment intensity and margin consistency.
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.
Softcat plc occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although CDW Corporation still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Growth adds another layer to the lead, with a very wide gap in revenue growth between the two companies.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for CDW, with a forward P/E that is 5.3 turns lower there.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CDW vs SCT.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CDW and SCT.L 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.