Johnson Matthey holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across stability and growth. Givaudan still has the edge on 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.
On stability, the clearer edge sits with Givaudan SA, while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. GIVN.SW and JMAT.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Givaudan 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.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing 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 clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
Givaudan SA still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
The lead is built on both stability and growth — though stability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the GIVN.SW vs JMAT.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how GIVN.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.