Service International holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and stability. Sacyr, still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Service International holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Service International's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (SCI: Russell 1000, SCYR.MC: STOXX 600).
The page question resolves through growth, where Sacyr, S.A. holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours Service Corporation International.
This pair is matched through 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.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in recent revenue growth 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.
Service Corporation International looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
Stability is the one area where Sacyr, S.A. still pushes back materially — it is the steadier name on this dimension, which keeps the result from reading as one-way.
The lead is built on both growth and stability — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the SCI vs SCYR.MC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how SCI and SCYR.MC 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.