Sampo Oyj holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Mapfre, does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. In the market, Mapfre, carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Sampo Oyj's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Sampo Oyj, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in growth. The overall score gap is 20 points in favour of Sampo Oyj.
Both operate in: Insurance - Diversified
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. MAP.MC and SAMPO.HE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Mapfre, and Sampo Oyj each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Sampo Oyj occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Mapfre, S.A. still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
Sampo Oyj also shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which makes the lead look less detached from the underlying business picture.
Growth is the clearest driver, and profitability also supports Sampo Oyj's broader structural position.
Break down the MAP.MC vs SAMPO.HE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how MAP.MC and SAMPO.HE 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.