Johnson Matthey leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Johnson Matthey holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Johnson Matthey's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (ECL: Russell 1000, JMAT.L: STOXX 600).
Valuation still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison.
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ECL and JMAT.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Ecolab and Johnson Matthey each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Ecolab Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
Where ECL and JMAT.L each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 18.4 turns lower.
Profitability still favours Ecolab, with a 16.3-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
Valuation clearly separates the pair, while the broader read stays strong rather than one-way.
Break down the ECL vs JMAT.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ECL and JMAT.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.