The structural profiles are close, with Linde carrying a narrow edge on stability. Johnson Matthey still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Linde holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Linde's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The comparison is mainly decided in stability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight.
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.
Linde plc still looks cheaper, even though Johnson Matthey Plc remains structurally stronger.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Johnson Matthey, with a forward P/E that is 13.2 turns lower there.
The main read on stability is clearer than the broader score gap.
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.
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.