Unilever holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Colgate-Palmolive Company still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The comparison is mainly decided in growth, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight.
Both operate in: Household & Personal Products
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CL and ULVR.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Colgate-Palmolive Company and Unilever each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Colgate-Palmolive Company.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 15.1-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
Growth gives Unilever PLC the clearer edge, even though profitability and the price setup keep the overall picture from looking clean.
Break down the CL vs ULVR.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CL and ULVR.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.
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.