Home Compare GGG vs ITW
Stock Comparison · Industry comparison · Specialty Industrial Machinery

Graco vs Illinois Tool Works: Which Stock Looks Stronger in 2026?

The structural profiles are close, with Graco carrying a narrow edge on growth. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. The market setup is currently leaning toward Illinois Tool Works, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Graco, but the market is not currently confirming it.

The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.

Updated 2026-04-05

Growth remains the main source of distance in the comparison.

INDUSTRY COMPARISON

Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery

This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. GGG and ITW share the same industry classification.

For a similarity-based comparison, see how Graco and Illinois Tool Works each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.

Peer-Relative Score
GGG
Graco Inc.
74
Peer-Score
Signal qualityHigh
vs
ITW
Illinois Tool Works Inc.
69
Peer-Score
Signal qualityMedium

Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.

Score differences across key dimensions.

Dimension spread: GGG vs ITW Profitability 87 80 Stability 71 68 Valuation 68 67 Growth 64 56 GGG ITW
Gap Ranking
#1 Growth +8
#2 Profitability +7
#3 Stability +3
#4 Valuation +1
Price Setup

Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.

Price setup map for GGG and ITW Stronger + cheaper Stronger + richer Weaker + cheaper Weaker + richer GGGITW Relative valuation Structural strength

The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Graco Inc..

Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.

Relative Position vs Comparable Companies
Growth
Growth also leans toward Graco Inc., reinforcing the broader structural lead.
Growth — Dominant Gap
GGG
64
ITW
56
Gap+8in favour of GGG

The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.

What else supports the lead

Longer-term trajectory data broadly supports the current direction of the comparison.

What this means for the comparison

The lead is visible and not limited to a single small edge.

Explore full peer positioning in AssetNext

Break down the GGG vs ITW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.

Explore full breakdown →
Other close comparisons

Explore how GGG and ITW 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.

How AssetNext Peer Scores Work

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.