Structurally, The Progressive and Rolls-Royce are closely matched — neither holds a meaningful edge overall. Rolls-Royce still leads on growth and profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Rolls-Royce carries the stronger setup — intact trend against The Progressive's broken trend.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (PGR: S&P 500, RR.L: STOXX 600).
On stability, the clearer edge sits with The Progressive Corporation, while the broader score remains level.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
The match is driven mainly by margin trend and revenue stability.
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.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Rolls-Royce Holdings plc.
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.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 716-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the PGR vs RR.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how PGR and RR.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.
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.