The J. M. Smucker Company holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and stability adding further support. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. 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. Both peer scores are relative to the S&P 500 universe, making them directly comparable.
Most of the lead runs through growth, while stability helps make the separation broader. The overall score gap is 9 points in favour of The J. M. Smucker Company.
Both operate in: Packaged Foods
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. KHC and SJM share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how The Kraft Heinz Company and The J. M. Smucker Company 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 J. M. Smucker Company looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E where available.
Where KHC and SJM each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.
Stability still reinforces the same direction, which makes the lead look broader across the profile.
Growth is the clearest driver, and stability also supports The J. M. Smucker Company's broader structural position.
Break down the KHC vs SJM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how KHC and SJM 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.