Interactive Brokers holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and growth. flatexDEGIRO SE still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Interactive Brokers is in better shape — its trend is intact while flatexDEGIRO SE's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Interactive Brokers's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The lead is spread across profitability and stability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. leads by 22 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Capital Markets
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. FTK.DE and IBKR share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how flatexDEGIRO SE and Interactive Brokers each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 41-point operating margin advantage.
Earnings growth also leans the other way, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
Profitability settles the main question, even though growth still keeps the broader picture from looking fully clean.
Break down the FTK.DE vs IBKR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how FTK.DE and IBKR 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.