Swiss Prime Site holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. SEGRO still leads on growth and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Swiss Prime Site is in better shape — its trend is intact while SEGRO's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Swiss Prime Site's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Stability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The overall score gap is 9 points in favour of Swiss Prime Site AG.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and revenue growth trajectory.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in stability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Swiss Prime Site AG occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although SEGRO Plc still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for SEGRO, with a forward P/E that is 16.4 turns lower there.
The stability lead is clear, but pricing and valuation still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the SGRO.L vs SPSN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how SGRO.L and SPSN.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.
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.