The structural profiles are close, with JD Sports Fashion carrying a narrow edge on growth. Expedia still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Expedia carries the stronger setup — intact trend against JD Sports Fashion's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with JD Sports Fashion, 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 (EXPE: S&P 500, JD.L: STOXX 600).
Growth points more clearly toward Expedia Group, Inc., even if the broader score still leans toward JD Sports Fashion Plc.
This comparison is anchored in 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 clearest structural overlap shows up in margin consistency and revenue stability.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
JD Sports Fashion Plc and Expedia Group, Inc. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward JD Sports Fashion Plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where EXPE and JD.L each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The main growth separation is very wide, driven by a meaningfully stronger expansion profile.
Expedia Group, Inc. still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the EXPE vs JD.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how EXPE and JD.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.
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.