The structural profiles are close, with Flutter Entertainment carrying a narrow edge on growth. Atlassian still has the edge on growth, 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. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
Growth points more clearly toward Atlassian Corporation, even if the broader score still leans toward Flutter Entertainment plc.
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.
Most of the shared profile comes through revenue stability and investment intensity.
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.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for Flutter Entertainment plc.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E where available.
Where FLUT and TEAM each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The clearest distance comes from a stronger growth profile.
Atlassian Corporation 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 stability adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the FLUT vs TEAM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how FLUT and TEAM 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.