Structurally, The Carlyle and St. James's Place are closely matched — neither holds a meaningful edge overall. St. James's Place still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
On growth, the clearer edge sits with The Carlyle Group Inc., while the broader score remains level.
Both operate in: Asset Management
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CG and STJ.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how The Carlyle and St. James's Place each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
St. James's Place plc and The Carlyle Group Inc. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward St. James's Place plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for St. James's Place, with a trailing P/E that is 9.5 turns lower there.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CG vs STJ.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CG and STJ.L 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.