Interactive Brokers leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Tradeweb Markets still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Interactive Brokers is in better shape — its trend is intact while Tradeweb Markets'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.
Profitability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The overall score gap is 10 points in favour of Interactive Brokers Group, Inc..
Both operate in: Capital Markets
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. IBKR and TW share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Interactive Brokers and Tradeweb Markets each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 36-point operating margin advantage.
Tradeweb Markets Inc. still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Profitability clearly separates the pair, while the broader read stays strong rather than one-way.
Break down the IBKR vs TW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how IBKR and TW 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.