The structural profiles are close, with Johnson Matthey carrying a narrow edge on valuation. EMS-CHEMIE still leads on profitability and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward EMS-CHEMIE, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Johnson Matthey, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The lead is spread across valuation and growth, rather than sitting in one isolated gap.
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. EMSN.SW and JMAT.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how EMS-CHEMIE 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.
EMS-CHEMIE HOLDING AG still looks stronger overall, though current pricing 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 16.3 turns lower.
There is still a strong counterforce in stability, so the lead stays clear without becoming a sweep.
The lead is built on both valuation and stability — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the EMSN.SW vs JMAT.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how EMSN.SW 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.