Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane S.p.A holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Derwent London 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 clearest separation starts in profitability, with stability adding a second layer of support. The overall score gap is 9 points in favour of Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane S.p.A..
These two companies are linked by measured 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.
Most of the shared profile comes through revenue growth trajectory and capital structure.
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.
Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane S.p.A. is cheaper, but Derwent London Plc is still stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 23.6-point operating margin advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Derwent London, with a trailing P/E that is 7.3 turns lower there.
The profitability lead is clear, but pricing and valuation still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the DLN.L vs INW.MI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how DLN.L and INW.MI 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.