Coca-Cola HBC holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Jerónimo Martins, SGPS, does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Coca-Cola HBC holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Coca-Cola HBC'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 STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. The overall score gap is 15 points in favour of Coca-Cola HBC AG.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in margin consistency and investment intensity.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup stays mixed because structure and the price setup do not align cleanly in one direction.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 8.6-point operating margin advantage.
Jerónimo Martins, SGPS, S.A. still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Profitability is the clearest driver, and growth also supports Coca-Cola HBC AG's broader structural position.
Break down the CCH.L vs JMT.LS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CCH.L and JMT.LS 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.