The structural profiles are close, with Ecolab carrying a narrow edge on valuation. RPM International still has the edge on valuation, 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.
Valuation points more clearly toward RPM International Inc., even if the broader score still leans toward Ecolab Inc..
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ECL and RPM share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Ecolab and RPM International 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 RPM International Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The peer-relative valuation gap is wide, with the stronger side also looking meaningfully cheaper.
Profitability adds a second layer of support to the lead, with a 7.5-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 RPM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ECL and RPM 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.