Fidelity National Financial holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Schroders still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Schroders carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Fidelity National Financial's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Fidelity National Financial, 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 (FNF: Russell 1000, SDR.L: STOXX 600).
This is not just a one-metric split: both stability and growth materially support the lead.
This comparison is anchored in 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 capital structure and margin trend.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. still looks stronger, and the price setup does not materially undermine that lead.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Profitability still favours Schroders, with a 15.4-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though profitability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the FNF vs SDR.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how FNF and SDR.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.