9 companies structurally similar to Public Storage (PSA) — identified by peer analysis across revenue dynamics, margin profile, capital efficiency and growth patterns. Not based on sector labels alone.
Companies similar to Public Storage cluster around comparable structural characteristics, with the strongest visible overlap typically appearing in quality. Examples in this group include Simon Property Group, Inc., Lamar Advertising Company, Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc..
| # | Company | Peer score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 |
SPG · Real Estate
|
74 |
Analysis PSA vs SPG |
| #2 |
LAMR · Real Estate
|
39 |
Analysis PSA vs LAMR |
| #3 |
GLPI · Real Estate
|
72 |
Analysis PSA vs GLPI |
| #4 |
WDP.BR · Real Estate
|
48 |
Analysis PSA vs WDP.BR |
| #5 |
LI.PA · Real Estate
|
74 |
Analysis PSA vs LI.PA |
| #6 |
LAND.L · Real Estate
|
49 |
Analysis PSA vs LAND.L |
| #7 |
BYG.L · Real Estate
|
57 |
Analysis PSA vs BYG.L |
| #8 |
AM · Energy
|
55 |
Analysis PSA vs AM |
| #9 |
COFB.BR · Real Estate
|
49 |
Analysis PSA vs COFB.BR |
Peer-relative comparison across valuation, quality, growth and stability.
Full interactive peer view with similarity scores, compare tool and portfolio integration.
Peer similarity is rule-based and descriptive only. Based on structural analysis of revenue, margins, capital intensity and growth patterns. Not investment advice.
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.