Persimmon leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Taylor Wimpey does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Persimmon holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Persimmon's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. Persimmon Plc leads by 19 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Residential Construction
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. PSN.L and TW.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Neither company combines the stronger profile with the cheaper valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 5-point ROIC advantage.
Taylor Wimpey plc still looks less cycle-sensitive — that keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
The main edge on profitability is clear, but the broader result still comes with a real counterweight.
Break down the PSN.L vs TW.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how PSN.L and TW.L 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.