Rightmove holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and growth adding further support. Games Workshop does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. The market setup is currently leaning toward Games Workshop, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Rightmove, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
Valuation remains the main source of distance in the comparison. Rightmove plc leads by 18 points on the overall comparison score.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
The match is driven mainly by revenue stability and capital structure.
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.
Rightmove plc and Games Workshop Group PLC look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Rightmove plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 19.8 turns lower.
The market setup is mixed for both, so the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
Valuation is the clearest driver, and growth also supports Rightmove plc's broader structural position.
Break down the GAW.L vs RMV.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how GAW.L and RMV.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.