Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
AEG · against 175 other Banks & Insurance companies of similar size
Ranked #151 of 176 · scores higher than 13% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the profitability score15 peers with a profitability score of 20–29, including AEG · Click a bar to see the companies
Mainly because of its return on assets, which is weaker than most Banks & Insurance peers.
| Metric | AEG | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return on invested capitalHigher is better · 153 reported | 5.3% | 10.8% | 20% | Context only | |
| Operating marginHigher is better · 22 reported | Not reported | 13.6% | — | — | Context only |
| Return on assetsHigher is better · 176 reported | 0.3% | 1.3% | 5% | 50% | |
| Return on equityHigher is better · 174 reported | 11.1% | 12.5% | 38% | 50% | |
| Gross marginHigher is better · 183 reported | 45.7% | 0.0% | 79% | Context only |
Metrics with no weight are context only: for banks, brokers and insurers, free cash flow, EBITDA, gross margin and current ratio mostly reflect trading and funding flows, not the health of the business.
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
| Rank | Company | Market cap | Profitability | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 79.2B BRL (≈$14.3B) | 98 | 61 | |
| 1 | 24.3B AUD (≈$16.0B) | 98 | 45 | |
| 1 | 11.4B USD | 98 | 66 | |
| 1 | 8.7B USD | 98 | 61 | |
| 1 | 14.2B AUD (≈$9.3B) | 98 | 57 | |
| 148 | 14.4B USD | 30 | 19 | |
| 150 | 1.14T INR (≈$13.7B) | 29 | 22 | |
| 151 | 82.9B CNY (≈$11.6B) | 28 | 35 | |
| 151 | 358.2B TWD (≈$11.1B) | 28 | 35 | |
| 151 | 12.0B USD | 28 | 57 | |
| 154 | 31.01T KRW (≈$22.3B) | 27 | ||
| 155 | 131.0B ZAR (≈$7.2B) | 25 | 24 | |
| 156 | 457.3B TWD (≈$14.2B) | 24 | ||
| 156 | 1.37T JPY (≈$9.3B) | 24 | 49 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score