IMI holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and stability adding further support. Advanced Drainage Systems does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. On the market side, IMI is in better shape — its trend is intact while Advanced Drainage Systems's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — IMI's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (IMI.L: STOXX 600, WMS: Russell 1000).
The clearest separation starts in growth, but stability adds another real layer to the result. IMI plc leads by 22 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
Most of the shared profile comes through capital structure and revenue growth trajectory.
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.
Structure clearly favours IMI plc, even though current pricing leans the other way.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. still looks less cycle-sensitive — that keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
Growth is the clearest driver, and stability also supports IMI plc's broader structural position.
Break down the IMI.L vs WMS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how IMI.L and WMS 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.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
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.