Home Compare JDEP.AS vs SJM
Stock Comparison · Industry comparison · Packaged Foods

JDE Peet's N.V. vs The J. M. Smucker Company: Which Stock Looks Stronger in 2026?

The J. M. Smucker Company holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and growth adding further support. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. In the market, JDE Peet's carries the stronger setup — intact trend against The J. M. Smucker Company's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with The J. M. Smucker Company, but the market is not currently confirming it.

The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (JDEP.AS: STOXX 600, SJM: S&P 500).

Updated 2026-05-17

Valuation still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The J. M. Smucker Company leads by 8 points on the overall comparison score.

INDUSTRY COMPARISON

Both operate in: Packaged Foods

This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. JDEP.AS and SJM share the same industry classification.

For a similarity-based comparison, see how JDE Peet's and The J. M. Smucker Company each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.

Peer-Relative Score
JDEP.AS
JDE Peet's N.V.
54
Peer-Score
Signal qualitylow
Peer basis: STOXX 600
vs
SJM
The J. M. Smucker Company
62
Peer-Score
Signal qualityHigh
Peer basis: S&P 500

Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.

Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.

Dimension spread: JDEP.AS vs SJM Profitability 33 29 Stability 61 57 Valuation 62 88 Growth 65 75 JDEP.AS SJM
Gap Ranking
#1 Valuation +26
#2 Growth +10
#3 Profitability +4
#4 Stability +4
Price Setup

Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.

Price setup map for JDEP.AS and SJM Stronger + cheaper Stronger + richer Weaker + cheaper Weaker + richer JDEP.ASSJM Relative valuation Structural strength

The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against JDE Peet's N.V..

Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.

Entry today — historical context

Where JDEP.AS and SJM each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.

BASED ON 5-YEAR HISTORY JDEP.AS Elevated · near norm 0th 50th 100th 90 pct gap SJM Lower · near norm 0th 50th 100th 99th 9th
Today SJM sits in the lower portion of its own 5-year history (9th percentile), while JDEP.AS sits higher in its own history (99th). Within each stock's own 5-year context, SJM is at a historically more favourable entry position than JDEP.AS. This reflects entry timing, not which company is structurally stronger — peer-relative analysis is a separate question addressed above.

Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.

Relative Position vs Comparable Companies
Valuation
Both rank well on valuation, but The J. M. Smucker Company still holds a clear edge.
Growth
The same pattern holds on growth: both sit in the stronger range, with JDE Peet's N.V. still higher.
Valuation — Dominant Gap
JDEP.AS
62
SJM
88
Gap+26in favour of SJM

The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 5.2 turns lower.

What keeps the gap from being one-sided

On the market side, JDE Peet's carries the stronger trend while The J. M. Smucker Company's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.

What this means for the comparison

Valuation is the clearest driver, and growth also supports The J. M. Smucker Company's broader structural position.

Explore full peer positioning in AssetNext

Break down the JDEP.AS vs SJM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.

Explore full breakdown →
Similar valuation-driven comparisons

Explore how JDEP.AS and SJM 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.

How AssetNext Peer Scores Work

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.