Jerónimo Martins, SGPS, holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and profitability adding further support. In the market, US Foods carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Jerónimo Martins, SGPS,'s broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Jerónimo Martins, SGPS,, 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 (JMT.LS: STOXX 600, USFD: Russell 1000).
Most of the lead runs through valuation, while profitability helps make the separation broader. Jerónimo Martins, SGPS, S.A. leads by 10 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Food Distribution
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. JMT.LS and USFD share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Jerónimo Martins, SGPS, and US Foods 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.
Jerónimo Martins, SGPS, S.A. and US Foods Holding Corp. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Jerónimo Martins, SGPS, S.A..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where JMT.LS and USFD each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 6.8 turns lower.
On the market side, US Foods carries the stronger trend while Jerónimo Martins, SGPS,'s trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Valuation is the clearest driver, and profitability also supports Jerónimo Martins, SGPS, S.A.'s broader structural position.
Break down the JMT.LS vs USFD comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how JMT.LS and USFD 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.