The structural profiles are close, with Parker-Hannifin carrying a narrow edge on growth. Rotork still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Parker-Hannifin is in better shape — its trend is intact while Rotork's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Parker-Hannifin's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Growth points more clearly toward Rotork plc, even if the broader score still leans toward Parker-Hannifin Corporation.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. PH and ROR.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Parker-Hannifin and Rotork 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 growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Parker-Hannifin Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
Rotork plc still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with stability adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the PH vs ROR.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how PH and ROR.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.
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.