Eaton leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. On the market side, Eaton is in better shape — its trend is intact while Ingersoll Rand's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Eaton's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest score difference appears in valuation. Eaton Corporation plc leads by 10 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ETN and IR share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Eaton and Ingersoll Rand 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 structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Ingersoll Rand Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a trailing P/E that is 19.5 turns lower.
Ingersoll Rand Inc. still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
The score lead is real, although the wider profile still suggests a more growth-sensitive setup than a defensive one.
Break down the ETN vs IR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ETN and IR 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.