BELIMO holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and profitability. Trane Technologies still leads on valuation and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward Trane Technologies, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with BELIMO, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The result is anchored in growth, but profitability also reinforces the same direction.
Both operate in: Building Products & Equipment
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. BEAN.SW and TT share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how BELIMO and Trane Technologies each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
BELIMO Holding AG still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for Trane Technologies plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a stronger growth profile.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Trane Technologies, with a forward P/E that is 4.8 turns lower there.
The lead is built on both growth and profitability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the BEAN.SW vs TT comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BEAN.SW and TT 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.