IMI holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and stability. Lennox International still leads on profitability and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, IMI is in better shape — its trend is intact while Lennox International'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.
The comparison is mainly decided in growth, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. IMI plc leads by 8 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and revenue stability.
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.
IMI plc still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for Lennox International Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
Stability also supports the lead, so the result is broader than one isolated gap.
The lead is built on both growth and stability — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the IMI.L vs LII comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how IMI.L and LII 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.