DICK'S Sporting Goods leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. In the market, Compass carries the stronger setup — intact trend against DICK'S Sporting Goods's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with DICK'S Sporting Goods, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (CPG.L: STOXX 600, DKS: Russell 1000).
Valuation still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The overall score gap is 8 points in favour of DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc..
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
The match is driven mainly by operating margin level and capital structure.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. and Compass Group PLC look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CPG.L and DKS each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 7.2 turns lower.
On the market side, Compass carries the stronger trend while DICK'S Sporting Goods's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Valuation is still the cleanest way to understand the lead here.
Break down the CPG.L vs DKS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CPG.L and DKS 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.