NEXT holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and valuation adding further support. JD Sports Fashion still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, NEXT is in better shape — its trend is intact while JD Sports Fashion's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — NEXT'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.
Most of the visible separation comes from growth. The overall score gap is 15 points in favour of NEXT plc.
Both operate in: Apparel Retail
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. JD.L and NXT.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how JD Sports Fashion and NEXT 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 price setup looks more supportive for NEXT plc, but JD Sports Fashion Plc still has the stronger structure.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for JD Sports Fashion, with a forward P/E that is 10 turns lower there.
The growth lead is clear, but pricing and valuation still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the JD.L vs NXT.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how JD.L and NXT.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.
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.