The structural profiles are close, with Donaldson Company carrying a narrow edge on growth. ATI still leads on growth and profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, ATI carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Donaldson Company's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Donaldson Company, 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 Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
Growth points more clearly toward ATI Inc., even if the broader score still leans toward Donaldson Company, Inc..
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.
Most of the shared profile comes through margin consistency and revenue stability.
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.
ATI Inc. still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for Donaldson Company, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ATI and DCI each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The clearest distance comes from a stronger growth profile.
On the market side, ATI carries the stronger trend while Donaldson Company's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The lead is built on both growth and valuation — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the ATI vs DCI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ATI and DCI 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.