Structurally, Johnson Matthey and RPM International are closely matched — neither holds a meaningful edge overall. RPM International still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Johnson Matthey holds the more constructive position.
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, RPM: Russell 1000).
On growth, the clearer edge sits with Johnson Matthey Plc, while the broader score remains level.
Both operate in: Specialty Chemicals
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. JMAT.L and RPM share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Johnson Matthey and RPM International each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against RPM International Inc..
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where JMAT.L and RPM each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The main growth separation is wide, driven by a meaningfully stronger expansion profile.
Profitability still favours RPM International, with a 13.1-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though profitability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the JMAT.L vs RPM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how JMAT.L and RPM 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.