The structural profiles are close, with Pennon carrying a narrow edge on stability. Iron Mountain still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward Iron Mountain, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Pennon, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (IRM: Russell 1000, PNN.L: STOXX 600).
Stability points more clearly toward Iron Mountain Incorporated, even if the broader score still leans toward Pennon Group Plc.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
Most of the shared profile comes through revenue stability and margin trend.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in stability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup splits cleanly: structure favours Iron Mountain Incorporated, while the price setup favours Pennon Group Plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Iron Mountain Incorporated still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Stability points one way, even though the overall score still points the other way.
Break down the IRM vs PNN.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how IRM and PNN.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.