Johnson Controls International holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and stability adding further support. On the market side, Johnson Controls International is in better shape — its trend is intact while Carrier Global's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Johnson Controls International's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
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.
The clearest score difference appears in growth. The overall score gap is 14 points in favour of Johnson Controls International plc.
Both operate in: Building Products & Equipment
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CARR and JCI share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Carrier Global and JCI 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.
Neither company combines the stronger profile with the cheaper valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CARR and JCI each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Stability also supports the lead, so the result is broader than one isolated gap.
Growth is the clearest driver, and stability also supports Johnson Controls International plc's broader structural position.
Break down the CARR vs JCI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CARR and JCI 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.