Lennox International holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Smiths still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward Smiths, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Lennox International, 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 (LII: Russell 1000, SMIN.L: STOXX 600).
Stability points more clearly toward Smiths Group plc, even if the broader score still leans toward Lennox International Inc..
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and margin trend.
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.
The two profiles are relatively close, but the price setup still leans toward Lennox International Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
The market setup is mixed for both, so the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the LII vs SMIN.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how LII and SMIN.L 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.