Johnson Matthey leads structurally, with growth as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. In the market, Alcoa carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Johnson Matthey's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Johnson Matthey, but the market is not currently confirming it.
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. Johnson Matthey Plc leads by 11 points on the overall comparison score.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
The strongest overlap appears in investment intensity and operating margin level.
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.
Johnson Matthey Plc still looks cheaper, even though Alcoa Corporation remains structurally stronger.
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.
On the market side, Alcoa carries the stronger trend while Johnson Matthey's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Growth clearly separates the pair, while the broader read stays strong rather than one-way.
Break down the AA vs JMAT.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AA 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.