Wihlborgs Fastigheter AB (publ) holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. The market setup is currently leaning toward Warehouses De Pauw, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Wihlborgs Fastigheter AB (publ), but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in growth. The overall score gap is 12 points in favour of Wihlborgs Fastigheter AB (publ).
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
Most of the shared profile comes through margin consistency and capital structure.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Wihlborgs Fastigheter AB (publ) still looks stronger, and the price setup does not materially undermine that lead.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The main growth separation is very wide, driven by a meaningfully stronger expansion profile.
Warehouses De Pauw SA still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
Growth is the clearest driver, and profitability also supports Wihlborgs Fastigheter AB (publ)'s broader structural position.
Break down the WDP.BR vs WIHL.ST comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how WDP.BR and WIHL.ST 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.