Johnson Matthey holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The comparison is mainly decided in growth, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight.
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. AKZA.AS and JMAT.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Akzo Nobel and Johnson Matthey each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup stays mixed because structure and the price setup do not align cleanly in one direction.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
Akzo Nobel N.V. still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Growth is the clearest driver, and profitability also supports Johnson Matthey Plc's broader structural position.
Break down the AKZA.AS vs JMAT.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AKZA.AS and JMAT.L 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.
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.