Ranked by peer-relative stability score. Industrial companies with the most consistent financial profiles.
In the Industrials segment, this ranking covers 30 companies, with visible stability scores ranging from 88 at the top to 65 at the lower end of the displayed cohort. The middle of the ranking sits around 71, so names materially above that level stand out on stability.
| # | Company | Stability score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 |
RSG · Industrials
|
88 |
Analysis → |
| #2 |
CTAS · Industrials
|
85 |
Analysis → |
| #3 |
SRP.L · Industrials
|
84 |
Analysis → |
| #4 |
PCAR · Industrials
|
82 |
Analysis → |
| #5 |
WAB · Industrials
|
82 |
Analysis → |
| #6 |
NOC · Industrials
|
80 |
Analysis → |
| #7 |
SNA · Industrials
|
80 |
Analysis → |
| #8 |
GET.PA · Industrials
|
80 |
Analysis → |
| #9 |
GD · Industrials
|
79 |
Analysis → |
| #10 |
G1A.DE · Industrials
|
77 |
Analysis → |
| #11 |
GWW · Industrials
|
76 |
Analysis → |
| #12 |
WM · Industrials
|
76 |
Analysis → |
| #13 |
VLTO · Industrials
|
75 |
Analysis → |
| #14 |
BBY.L · Industrials
|
74 |
Analysis → |
| #15 |
EXPD · Industrials
|
71 |
Analysis → |
| #16 |
SMIN.L · Industrials
|
71 |
Analysis → |
| #17 |
HO.PA · Industrials
|
70 |
Analysis → |
| #18 |
EN.PA · Industrials
|
70 |
Analysis → |
| #19 |
BVI.PA · Industrials
|
70 |
Analysis → |
| #20 |
CLH · Industrials
|
69 |
Analysis → |
| #21 |
FAST · Industrials
|
68 |
Analysis → |
| #22 |
AME · Industrials
|
68 |
Analysis → |
| #23 |
OTIS · Industrials
|
67 |
Analysis → |
| #24 |
FER.MC · Industrials
|
67 |
Analysis → |
| #25 |
ACS.MC · Industrials
|
67 |
Analysis → |
| #26 |
SCHP.SW · Industrials
|
67 |
Analysis → |
| #27 |
CHRW · Industrials
|
66 |
Analysis → |
| #28 |
SPIE.PA · Industrials
|
66 |
Analysis → |
| #29 |
NKT.CO · Industrials
|
66 |
Analysis → |
| #30 |
HON · Industrials
|
65 |
Analysis → |
Direct peer comparisons for the companies ranked above.
Full peer comparison, portfolio integration and live data for all ranked companies.
Rankings based on peer-relative stability scores. Descriptive only — not investment advice. Scores reflect structural position within each company's functional peer group.
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.