The structural profiles are close, with United Therapeutics carrying a narrow edge on growth. Mastercard still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. 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. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
The page question resolves through growth, where Mastercard Incorporated holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours United Therapeutics Corporation.
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 margin consistency and revenue growth trajectory.
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.
Mastercard Incorporated still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for United Therapeutics Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where MA and UTHR each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
Mastercard Incorporated still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
Growth points one way, even though the overall score still points the other way.
Break down the MA vs UTHR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how MA and UTHR 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.