The structural profiles are close, with Ecolab carrying a narrow edge on valuation. Johnson Matthey still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Ecolab holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Ecolab'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: S&P 500, JMAT.L: STOXX 600).
The page question resolves through valuation, where Johnson Matthey Plc holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours Ecolab Inc..
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.
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.
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 peer-relative valuation gap is wide, with the stronger side also looking meaningfully cheaper.
Profitability adds some additional support to the lead, with a 14.7-point operating margin advantage.
Valuation is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though valuation 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.
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.