IMI holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Wärtsilä Oyj Abp 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 Wärtsilä Oyj Abp'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. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
Growth still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The overall score gap is 10 points in favour of IMI plc.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. IMI.L and WRT1V.HE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how IMI and Wärtsilä Oyj Abp 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.
IMI plc looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
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.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 74-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
The growth edge is decisive, but profitability still pushes back — the result holds, but not without a real counterweight.
Break down the IMI.L vs WRT1V.HE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how IMI.L and WRT1V.HE 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.