IMI holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Rotork still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, IMI is in better shape — its trend is intact while Rotork'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.
Growth remains the main source of distance in the comparison.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. IMI.L and ROR.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how IMI and Rotork 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.
The setup remains mixed because the stronger profile and the more supportive price setup do not sit on the same side.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 4.4-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
Growth points more clearly to IMI plc, but profitability and current pricing keep the broader result mixed.
Break down the IMI.L vs ROR.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how IMI.L and ROR.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.