Graco holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. IMI still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, IMI carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Graco's broken trend. 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.
The lead is spread across profitability and stability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. Graco Inc. leads by 12 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. GGG and IMI.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Graco and IMI 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.
Neither company combines the stronger profile with the cheaper valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 8.6-point ROIC advantage.
Earnings growth also leans the other way, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the GGG vs IMI.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how GGG and IMI.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.