The structural profiles are close, with Illinois Tool Works carrying a narrow edge on growth. 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 Illinois Tool Works's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Illinois Tool Works, but the market is not currently confirming it.
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, ITW: Russell 1000).
The page question resolves through growth, where IMI plc holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours Illinois Tool Works Inc..
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. IMI.L and ITW share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how IMI and Illinois Tool Works each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for Illinois Tool Works Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a stronger growth profile.
On the market side, IMI carries the stronger trend while Illinois Tool Works's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with stability adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the IMI.L vs ITW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how IMI.L 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.
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.