Mastercard holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and stability. Partners does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (MA: S&P 500, PGHN.SW: STOXX 600).
This is not just a one-metric split: both profitability and stability materially support the lead. Mastercard Incorporated leads by 26 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through 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.
The strongest overlap appears in margin consistency and revenue growth trajectory.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
More than one operating dimension supports the result here.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Mastercard Incorporated holds the stronger structural profile, but the price setup still leans toward Partners Group Holding AG.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where MA and PGHN.SW each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 60-point ROIC advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Partners, with a forward P/E that is 6.6 turns lower there.
The lead is built on both profitability and stability, making it broader than a single-dimension result.
Break down the MA vs PGHN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how MA and PGHN.SW 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.