ITT holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Schneider Electric S.E still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, ITT is in better shape — its trend is intact while Schneider Electric S.E's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — ITT's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest separation starts in growth, but valuation adds another real layer to the result. The overall score gap is 16 points in favour of ITT Inc..
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ITT and SU.PA share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how ITT and Schneider Electric S.E each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
ITT Inc. looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
Valuation adds another layer of support rather than leaving the result tied to growth alone.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the ITT vs SU.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ITT and SU.PA 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.