Jerónimo Martins, SGPS, holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and stability. Performance Food Company still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest separation starts in profitability, but stability adds another real layer to the result. The overall score gap is 19 points in favour of Jerónimo Martins, SGPS, S.A..
Both operate in: Food Distribution
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. JMT.LS and PFGC share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Jerónimo Martins, SGPS, and Performance Food Company each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
More than one operating dimension supports the result here.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Jerónimo Martins, SGPS, S.A. looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 8-point ROIC advantage.
Earnings growth also leans the other way, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
The lead is built on both profitability and stability — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the JMT.LS vs PFGC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how JMT.LS and PFGC 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.