Iron Mountain holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Cellnex Telecom, still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Iron Mountain is in better shape — its trend is intact while Cellnex Telecom,'s trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Iron Mountain's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (CLNX.MC: STOXX 600, IRM: S&P 500).
Most of the separation is still concentrated in growth. Iron Mountain Incorporated leads by 16 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured 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 revenue stability 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.
The price setup looks more supportive for Iron Mountain Incorporated, but Cellnex Telecom, S.A. still has the stronger structure.
Valuation position uses peer-relative valuation score and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CLNX.MC and IRM each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
Cellnex Telecom, S.A. still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
Growth settles the comparison, while pricing and valuation keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the CLNX.MC vs IRM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CLNX.MC and IRM 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.