Mapfre, holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and valuation. L3Harris Technologies still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Mapfre, is in better shape — its trend is intact while L3Harris Technologies's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Mapfre,'s lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (LHX: Russell 1000, MAP.MC: STOXX 600).
Growth points more clearly toward L3Harris Technologies, Inc., even if the broader score still leans toward Mapfre, S.A..
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity points to a meaningful structural match, though not a tight one.
The strongest overlap appears in recent revenue growth and investment intensity.
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.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against L3Harris Technologies, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where LHX and MAP.MC each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
L3Harris Technologies, Inc. still looks less cycle-sensitive — that keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
The lead is built on both growth and valuation — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the LHX vs MAP.MC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how LHX and MAP.MC 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.