The Weir holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — The Weir holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — The Weir's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Stability still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. SU.PA and WEIR.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Schneider Electric S.E 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.
The clearest separation appears in stability.
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.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
The Weir Group PLC also shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which makes the lead look less detached from the underlying business picture.
Stability is the clearest driver, and valuation also supports The Weir Group PLC's broader structural position.
Break down the SU.PA vs WEIR.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how SU.PA 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.