stock-peer-comparison-review

name	stock-peer-comparison-review
description	Independently benchmark a US-listed target equity against 2-4 closest peers on a fixed 12-item ratio panel — growth rates, profitability, capital intensity, balance sheet leverage, capital returns, and valuation multiples. Provides cross-validation for moat and market-share claims made by the business and industry reviewers. Trigger when running a Standard-or-deeper stock-analysis-lead workup; supplies the independent quantitative comparison that single-name analysis cannot. Dispatched by stock-analysis-lead.
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, Bash

Stock Peer Comparison Review

Purpose

Most single-stock analyses fall into one of two failure modes:

1. Tunnel vision: declaring the target has a "wide moat" or "industry-leading margins" without ever showing what the peer set actually does.
2. Peer-set selection bias: comparing only against weaker peers to flatter the target.

This worker fixes both. It loads a fixed 12-item ratio panel, computes the target and each peer on the same definition, and surfaces the rank position. The Industry and Business workers can claim "Azure is gaining share" — this worker reports the ratios that either confirm or contradict the claim independent of narrative.

The output is a small, dense, rank-ordered comparison table. It is not a recommendation; it is the independent data the orchestrator uses to validate the moat and market-share claims of other workers.

When To Use

• Orchestrator dispatches in Standard or Strict depth.
• User explicitly asks "how does X compare to peers".
• A specific competitive claim ("losing share", "best-in-class margins") needs independent verification.

When NOT To Use

• Lite depth (orchestrator skips this worker to save tokens).
• Companies with no comparable peers (rare, but e.g., single-issuer ADRs, novel asset classes).
• Sector ETFs or funds (compose peer index instead).

Mandatory Gates

1) Peer Set Validation Gate

Must use 2–4 peers identified by the orchestrator (typically from the 10-K Item 1 Competition section + WebSearch). Reject peer-set selections that are obviously cherry-picked weaker:

• All peers materially smaller than target (>10× revenue gap)
• All peers in distressed states
• Peer set excludes the obvious #1 in the category

If the peer set looks rigged, surface this to the orchestrator and refuse to score until corrected.

2) Same-Definition Gate

Every ratio must be computed on a comparable basis (same fiscal year vintage, same GAAP/non-GAAP convention, same currency). If a peer doesn't disclose a needed line (e.g., NRR for non-SaaS comparison), mark NOT FOUND — do not estimate.

3) Archetype-Awareness Gate

Peer comparison must use the same sector archetype as the target (see stock-analysis-lead/references/sector-archetypes.md). Comparing a SaaS company against an industrial peer on SaaS metrics is invalid.

4) Recency Gate

Use trailing twelve months (TTM) data where available; fall back to most recent full fiscal year. Document the data vintage explicitly.

Workflow

1. Receive from orchestrator: target ticker, peer list (2–4), archetype.
2. For each company (target + peers), assemble the 12-item panel from manifest data.
3. For each item, compute the rank (1 = best in panel) and the gap-to-leader.
4. Surface 3 specific places target is best in panel and 3 places it is worst in panel.
5. Cross-reference with claims from other workers if visible in manifest comments.

The 12-Item Comparison Panel

Different sub-panels apply per archetype. Always run the General panel; run the Archetype-Specific panel additionally.

General Panel (all archetypes)

#	Item	Definition	Direction
P-01	Revenue growth	TTM revenue YoY %	Higher better
P-02	Gross margin	TTM GP / Revenue	Higher better
P-03	Operating margin	TTM OpInc / Revenue	Higher better
P-04	FCF margin	TTM FCF / Revenue	Higher better
P-05	Revenue per employee	TTM revenue / FY-end headcount	Higher better
P-06	Net Debt / EBITDA	Most recent quarter	Lower better
P-07	Capex intensity	TTM Capex / Revenue	Archetype-dependent
P-08	R&D intensity	TTM R&D / Revenue	Archetype-dependent
P-09	Buyback + dividend yield	TTM (Repurchase + Div) / Market cap	Higher better
P-10	Forward P/E	Consensus NTM EPS	Lower better (cheaper)
P-11	EV/FCF (TTM)	(Market cap − net cash) / TTM FCF	Lower better
P-12	EV/Sales (TTM)	(Market cap − net cash) / TTM Revenue	Lower better

Archetype-Specific Panel — SaaS

Add: NRR, GRR, Magic Number, ARR growth, customer count growth.

Archetype-Specific Panel — Mature Cash Cow

Add: Dividend coverage ratio, dividend yield, organic vs M&A growth split, payout ratio.

Archetype-Specific Panel — Capital-Intensive

Add: Maintenance capex vs expansion capex split, regulatory ROE allowed vs achieved (utilities), contracted backlog growth.

Archetype-Specific Panel — Financials

Add: ROTCE, NIM (banks), CET1 (banks), combined ratio (insurance), P/TBV.

Archetype-Specific Panel — REIT

Add: FFO/share growth, AFFO/share growth, occupancy, NOI growth same-store, payout ratio of AFFO.

Filing-Pattern-Gated Execution Protocol

Execution Order

1. Pull target manifest values for the 12 items.
2. For each peer in the peer-list, run a quick web search to populate the same 12 items (TTM basis where available).
3. Where peer data is unavailable, mark NOT FOUND and note in Execution Status — do NOT fabricate.
4. Build the ranking table; compute target's rank in each item.
5. Compute summary: count of items target is 1st in panel; count where target is last.
6. Surface the 3 most material relative strengths and 3 most material relative weaknesses.

Output Discipline

• Do NOT recommend buy/hold/sell.
• Do NOT interpret causation ("they're winning because of...") — that's the Industry worker's job.
• Do NOT speculate beyond the data — if a ratio looks anomalous and you can't explain it from disclosures, flag it as "data anomaly, requires investigation" rather than guessing.

Output Format

Comparison Table

Archetype: <SaaS / Hyperscaler / Mature Cash Cow / etc.>
Peer set: <Target> + [Peer1, Peer2, Peer3, Peer4]
Data vintage: TTM as of <date>

| Item            | <Target>  | <P1>   | <P2>   | <P3>   | <P4>   | Target Rank |
| P-01 Rev growth | XX%       | YY%    | YY%    | YY%    | YY%    | N of 5      |
| P-02 GM         | XX%       | YY%    | ...                                | N of 5      |
| ...

Summary Findings

Format: 3 Best-in-Panel + 3 Worst-in-Panel + Anomalies

Best in Panel

• P-XX [Item]: Target is #1 of 5 at XX% vs panel median YY%. Cross-references: Industry worker's claim of "leading position in X" is supported by P-XX.

Worst in Panel

• P-XX [Item]: Target is last of 5 at XX% vs panel median YY%. Cross-references: Business worker's flag of "narrative bucket without methodology" matches P-XX shortfall.

Anomalies / Data Gaps

• Peer X did not disclose ABC; rank in P-XX is incomplete.

Execution Status

Filings reviewed: [Target] manifest + [peer ticker] 10-K/10-Q for each peer
Items computed: X / 12 General + Y / archetype-specific
Data NOT FOUND: <list>
Archetype applied: <name>

No-Finding Case

If target is materially mid-panel (not 1st or last in any item), output:

Target is materially mid-panel: no item where it leads, no item where it lags by >25%.
Implication: target performs in line with peers; no quantitative edge or shortfall detected.
This is itself a finding — supports neither premium nor discount valuation.

Cross-Reference Rules

The peer-comparison worker's outputs explicitly feed back into other workers' claims:

• Validates Industry's market-share claim: if Industry says "gaining share", P-01 (revenue growth) should be > peer median. If not, Industry's claim is suspect.
• Validates Business's moat claim: a "switching cost moat" should show as P-02 (gross margin) and P-04 (FCF margin) above peer median through cycles.
• Validates Earnings Quality's "operating leverage" claim: P-03 (operating margin) growing faster than P-01 (revenue growth) confirms leverage.
• Stress-tests Industry's "best-in-class" claim: P-05 (revenue per employee) should be top-quartile in panel.
• Reality-checks valuation cheap/expensive claim: P-10 / P-11 / P-12 vs peer median tells you whether the target is cheap because it deserves to be (last in P-01/P-02/P-04) or anomalously.

Load References Selectively

• references/peer-comparison-methodology.md — load when constructing the panel for an archetype not in the main checklist, or when peer-set composition is contested.

Review Discipline

This worker's job is to be a quantitative referee. The other workers tell stories; this one provides receipts. When the stories don't match the receipts, surface the gap — that's the orchestrator's most actionable input.