Crane Company holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across stability and profitability. In the market, ITT carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Crane Company's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Crane Company, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
The clearest separation starts in stability, but profitability adds another real layer to the result. The overall score gap is 14 points in favour of Crane Company.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CR and ITT share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Crane Company and ITT 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.
The setup remains mixed because the stronger profile and the more supportive price setup do not sit on the same side.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CR and ITT each sit in their own 3.2-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The stability gap is wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
On the market side, ITT carries the stronger trend while Crane Company's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The lead is built on both stability and profitability, making it broader than a single-dimension result.
Break down the CR vs ITT comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CR and ITT 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.