Bunzl holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Danone still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Bunzl holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Bunzl'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.
Profitability remains the main source of distance in the comparison. The overall score gap is 12 points in favour of Bunzl plc.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
Most of the shared profile comes through revenue growth trajectory and margin consistency.
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.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for Bunzl plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Return on equity adds support too, with a 5.6-point advantage.
Bunzl plc also shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which makes the lead look less detached from the underlying business picture.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the BN.PA vs BNZL.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BN.PA and BNZL.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.