Hormel Foods holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Archer-Daniels-Midland Company carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Hormel Foods's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Hormel Foods, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the S&P 500 universe, making them directly comparable.
Profitability is the clearest driver, while growth keeps the result from looking one-way.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
Most of the shared profile comes through margin consistency and investment intensity.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Archer-Daniels-Midland Company.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ADM and HRL each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 9.8-point operating margin advantage.
Growth still tilts materially toward Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, which stops the result from looking dominant across the whole profile.
The profitability edge is decisive, even though current pricing and growth still lean somewhat toward Archer-Daniels-Midland Company.
Break down the ADM vs HRL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ADM and HRL 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.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
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.