The structural profiles are close, with Associated British Foods carrying a narrow edge on stability. JDE Peet's still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, JDE Peet's carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Associated British Foods's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Associated British 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 STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
The page question resolves through stability, where JDE Peet's N.V. holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours Associated British Foods plc.
Both operate in: Packaged Foods
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ABF.L and JDEP.AS share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Associated British Foods and JDE Peet's 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 stability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
JDE Peet's N.V. occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Associated British Foods plc still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Earnings growth also leans toward JDEP.AS, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
The lead is built on both stability and profitability — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the ABF.L vs JDEP.AS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ABF.L and JDEP.AS 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.