The structural profiles are close, with Johnson Matthey carrying a narrow edge on stability. Linde still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is mixed, without a decisive signal in either direction. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (JMAT.L: STOXX 600, LIN: Nasdaq 100).
On stability, the clearer edge sits with Linde plc, while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. JMAT.L and LIN share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Johnson Matthey and Linde each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in stability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Johnson Matthey Plc and Linde plc look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Johnson Matthey Plc.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where JMAT.L and LIN each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Linde plc still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the JMAT.L vs LIN comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how JMAT.L and LIN 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.