Structurally, Scout24 SE and Warehouses De Pauw are closely matched — neither holds a meaningful edge overall. Warehouses De Pauw still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward Warehouses De Pauw, which does not confirm the structural lead.
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.
Growth points more clearly toward Scout24 SE, while the broader score stays level overall.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
Most of the shared profile comes through revenue stability and margin consistency.
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.
Scout24 SE still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for Warehouses De Pauw SA.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where G24.DE and WDP.BR each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The main growth separation is clear, driven by a meaningfully stronger expansion profile.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Warehouses De Pauw, with a forward P/E that is 2.8 turns lower there.
The lead is built on both growth and stability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the G24.DE vs WDP.BR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how G24.DE and WDP.BR 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.