The structural profiles are close, with Johnson Matthey carrying a narrow edge on valuation. Ecolab still leads on profitability and stability, 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.
Most of the lead runs through valuation, while growth helps make the separation broader.
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.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Ecolab Inc. looks stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for Johnson Matthey Plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 14.9 turns lower.
Stability still tilts materially toward Ecolab Inc., which stops the result from looking dominant across the whole profile.
Valuation is the clearest driver of the lead, with stability adding further support — though profitability still provides a real counterweight.
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.
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.