Parker-Hannifin holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Flowserve still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Most of the lead runs through profitability, while stability helps make the separation broader. The overall score gap is 11 points in favour of Parker-Hannifin Corporation.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. FLS and PH share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Flowserve and Parker-Hannifin 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.
Parker-Hannifin Corporation is cheaper, but Flowserve Corporation is still stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 7.4-point operating margin advantage.
Earnings growth also leans the other way, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
The profitability edge is decisive, even though current pricing and growth still lean somewhat toward Flowserve Corporation.
Break down the FLS vs PH comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how FLS and PH 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.