Valmet Oyj holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and stability adding further support. Smiths still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The lead is spread across valuation and growth, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. The overall score gap is 12 points in favour of Valmet Oyj.
Both operate in: Specialty Industrial Machinery
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. SMIN.L and VALMT.HE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Smiths and Valmet Oyj 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.
Valmet Oyj and Smiths Group plc look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Valmet Oyj.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 9.8 turns lower.
Stability still tilts materially toward Smiths Group plc, which stops the result from looking dominant across the whole profile.
Valuation is the clearest driver of the lead, with stability adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the SMIN.L vs VALMT.HE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how SMIN.L and VALMT.HE 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.