Structurally, Applied Industrial Technologies and W.W. Grainger are closely matched — neither holds a meaningful edge overall. W.W. Grainger still leads on profitability and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The page question resolves more clearly through growth, even though the overall score is effectively tied.
Both operate in: Industrial Distribution
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. AIT and GWW share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how AIT and W.W. Grainger 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 structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against W.W. Grainger, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 11.1-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though profitability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the AIT vs GWW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AIT and GWW 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.