Haleon holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and growth. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Haleon's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Haleon, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (BMY: S&P 500, HLN.L: STOXX 600).
Valuation points more clearly toward Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, even if the broader score still leans toward Haleon plc.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
The match is driven mainly by investment intensity and revenue growth trajectory.
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.
Haleon plc occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Bristol-Myers Squibb Company still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The peer-relative valuation gap is wide, with the stronger side also looking meaningfully cheaper.
On the market side, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company carries the stronger trend while Haleon's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The lead is built on both valuation and growth — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the BMY vs HLN.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BMY and HLN.L 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.