Sampo Oyj holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and stability. NN still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, NN 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.
This is not just a one-metric split: both growth and stability materially support the lead. The overall score gap is 18 points in favour of Sampo Oyj.
Both operate in: Insurance - Diversified
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. NN.AS and SAMPO.HE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how NN 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 looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
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.
Profitability still favours NN, with a 14.7-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
The lead is built on both growth and stability — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the NN.AS vs SAMPO.HE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how NN.AS 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.