Biological reference points (BRPs) used in fisheries management do not include density‐dependent (DD) growth, with DD processes only considered in the stock recruitment relationship. Not accounting for DD on somatic growth has led to criticism that such BRPs underestimate the compensatory effects of DD at low stock size, and therefore risk foregone catch opportunities. Here, we analyse 81 stocks from the Northeast Atlantic for evidence of DD growth, defined as the process in which stock size affects somatic weight. We evaluate the following questions: (1) How many stocks have experienced instantaneous DD growth and do stocks of the same species display similar trends? (2) Is there a common instantaneous DD growth relationship shared by all stocks? (3) For stocks exhibiting significant instantaneous DD growth, can we quantify the strength of the relationship? (4) Is DD growth operating as an intra‐cohort process as opposed to an instantaneous effect? Results reveal that only the weight of recruits exhibits a common instantaneous DD growth while the other responses analysed show a positive, noncompensatory effect, suggesting that other processes are at work. All responses examined showed significant temporal autocorrelation, which, when not accounted for, suggest apparent instantaneous DD growth in several stocks. Comparison of instantaneous against intracohort DD growth showed an increase in the number of stocks with significant DD growth, although, as for instantaneous DD growth, this declined greatly when temporal autocorrelation was accounted for. Our results counteract the a priori assumption that DD growth compensation is related only to stock biomass or density, suggesting that DD growth should be dealt case‐by‐case. Consequently, management practices that aim to fish down stock biomass with the anticipation of triggering DD growth will be associated with greater asymmetric risks than keeping biomass at levels where replacement yield does not rely on it.