Parker-Hannifin leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. The Weir does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. 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.
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. The overall score gap is 15 points in favour of Parker-Hannifin Corporation.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. PH and WEIR.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Parker-Hannifin and The Weir each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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 setup remains mixed because the stronger profile and the more supportive price setup do not sit on the same side.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 6.9-point ROIC advantage.
The Weir Group PLC still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Profitability clearly separates the pair, while the broader read stays strong rather than one-way.
Break down the PH vs WEIR.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how PH and WEIR.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.