W. P. Carey holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across stability and growth. SEGRO still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — W. P. Carey holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — W. P. Carey's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The lead is spread across stability and growth, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. The overall score gap is 20 points in favour of W. P. Carey Inc..
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
The strongest overlap appears in investment intensity and operating margin level.
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.
W. P. Carey Inc. 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 7.6 turns lower there.
The lead is built on both stability and growth — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the SGRO.L vs WPC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how SGRO.L and WPC 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.