UDR holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Fidelity National Information Services still leads on growth and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — UDR holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — UDR's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the S&P 500 universe, making them directly comparable.
Profitability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The overall score gap is 8 points in favour of UDR, Inc..
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
The strongest overlap appears in revenue stability and margin consistency.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
UDR, Inc. still looks cheaper, even though Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. remains structurally stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where FIS and UDR each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability gap is very wide, with the stronger side earning materially better operating marks.
Fidelity National Information Services still pushes back on growth, with a 26-point revenue-growth advantage that keeps the read from becoming one-way.
The profitability edge is decisive, even though current pricing and growth still lean somewhat toward Fidelity National Information Services, Inc..
Break down the FIS vs UDR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how FIS and UDR 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.