The structural profiles are close, with Mandatum Oyj carrying a narrow edge on growth. Storebrand ASA still leads on growth and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Growth points more clearly toward Storebrand ASA, even if the broader score still leans toward Mandatum Oyj.
Both operate in: Financial Conglomerates
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. MANTA.HE and STB.OL share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Mandatum Oyj and Storebrand ASA each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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 Storebrand ASA.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Storebrand ASA, with a forward P/E that is 8.9 turns lower there.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the MANTA.HE vs STB.OL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how MANTA.HE and STB.OL 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.