XP holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Stifel Financial still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, XP is in better shape — its trend is intact while Stifel Financial's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — XP's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Most of the visible separation comes from profitability. The overall score gap is 11 points in favour of XP Inc..
Both operate in: Capital Markets
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. SF and XP share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Stifel Financial and XP each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
XP Inc. and Stifel Financial Corp. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward XP Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Return on equity adds support too, with a 12-point advantage.
Stability is the one area where Stifel Financial Corp. still pushes back materially — it is the steadier name on this dimension, which keeps the result from reading as one-way.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the SF vs XP comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how SF and XP 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.