Skip to content

Cluster analysis · ALB

Sector explains 14%. Even 59 sub-industries explain 27%.

That is the share of variation in the model’s own readings that each classification accounts for. Grouped instead by what the model measures, 935 companies fall into 6 profiles that cut straight across all 9 sectors.

Sector limits are how most mandates control concentration. A book can satisfy every one of them and still be a single bet — not a reason to drop sectors, but a reason to have a second lens alongside them.

Share of variation explained

GICS sector · 9 groups13.6%

The classification most mandates and risk reports are written in.

GICS sub-industry · 59 groups27.3%

Far more groups, hand-built — the fairest test of classification alone.

Fundamental clusters · 6 groups56.6%

Fitted to maximise exactly this. Shown for scale, not as a fair contest.

Release 2026.10 · 31 October 2026 · recomputed from the model output on every release, not maintained by hand.

The profiles

6 groups, each defined by what it is strong and weak at.

Named from their own two strongest analytical families — generated from the data, not written by an analyst, so they stay accurate when the next release moves the boundaries.

C1206 · 22.0%

Weak quality score, strong traditional valuation score

Strongest
Traditional valuation score, Margin & profitability
Weakest
Quality score, Implied growth
Median size
$18.8bn

Most represented

  • Utilities27% of cluster(84% of sector)
  • Industrials21% of cluster(19% of sector)
  • Materials14% of cluster(39% of sector)
C2174 · 18.6%

Weak growth score, strong momentum score

Strongest
Momentum score, FCF yield score
Weakest
Growth score, Margin & profitability
Median size
$25.7bn

Most represented

  • Energy20% of cluster(58% of sector)
  • Industrials20% of cluster(15% of sector)
  • Health Care17% of cluster(22% of sector)
C3167 · 17.9%

Weak momentum score, strong implied growth

Strongest
Implied growth, Growth score
Weakest
Momentum score, Market score
Median size
$20.4bn

Most represented

  • Industrials38% of cluster(28% of sector)
  • Information Technology18% of cluster(21% of sector)
  • Health Care15% of cluster(19% of sector)
C4145 · 15.5%

Weak traditional valuation score, strong quality score

Strongest
Quality score, Leverage & management score
Weakest
Traditional valuation score, FCF yield score
Median size
$56.9bn

Most represented

  • Information Technology31% of cluster(31% of sector)
  • Industrials25% of cluster(16% of sector)
  • Health Care22% of cluster(24% of sector)
C5143 · 15.3%

Strong traditional valuation score, weak momentum score

Strongest
Traditional valuation score, FCF yield score
Weakest
Momentum score, Leverage & management score
Median size
$17.6bn

Most represented

  • Industrials23% of cluster(15% of sector)
  • Consumer Discretionary21% of cluster(29% of sector)
  • Consumer Staples20% of cluster(37% of sector)
C6100 · 10.7%

Weak fcf yield score, strong growth score

Strongest
Growth score, Momentum score
Weakest
FCF yield score, Traditional valuation score
Median size
$21.1bn

Most represented

  • Information Technology35% of cluster(24% of sector)
  • Health Care26% of cluster(19% of sector)
  • Industrials16% of cluster(7% of sector)
All nine analytical families, profile by profileStandard deviations from the universe mean; green is strength throughout.

Sectors

Some sectors are one thing. Most are several.

Utilities is genuinely homogeneous — 84% of it sits in a single profile. Industrials spreads across every one, its largest group holding only 28%. For a sector like that, the label says where a company is listed in a taxonomy, not how its business works.

C1 n=206C2 n=174C3 n=167C4 n=145C5 n=143C6 n=100
  • Utilities67 companies · largest cluster 84%
  • Energy60 companies · largest cluster 58%
  • Materials74 companies · largest cluster 39%
  • Consumer Staples75 companies · largest cluster 37%
  • Information Technology143 companies · largest cluster 31%
  • Communication Services51 companies · largest cluster 31%
  • Consumer Discretionary104 companies · largest cluster 29%
  • Health Care135 companies · largest cluster 24%
  • Industrials226 companies · largest cluster 28%

Method

How it is built, and where it is weak.

Each of the 935 companies is placed by its 14 published readings, reduced to 4 components and partitioned into 6 groups by k-means from a fixed seed. Read the groups as a map of similarity, not as a classification with hard edges.

Full method notesWhat it groups on, how stable the groups are, what was excluded, and why the profile share is not the headline.

What it is grouping on

Every company in the release is placed by its 14 published readings — the nine analytical families, the four style scores and its size. Those are converted to van der Waerden rank-normal scores, reduced to 4 components by horn parallel analysis, 20 permutations (74% of the variance), and partitioned by k-means. The same release in always produces the same groups out: every random draw runs from a fixed seed.

It is not the study it reconstructs

This follows a research study that clustered the same universe on the model’s raw inputs. Those inputs are not published — which ones they are, and in what direction they act, is the part of the model that stays closed — so this works one level up, on the families the engine does publish. The structural findings hold: sector explains a small share of the variance, sub-industry more, the clusters more again, and the same sectors turn out homogeneous. The per-cluster cash-flow and margin figures of the original do not appear here, and no substitute for them has been invented.

Why 6 groups, when the data prefers 3

Resampling 70% of the universe 20 times and refitting, the partition into 6 groups reproduces itself at an adjusted Rand index of 0.78. A coarser split into 3 is steadier still. 6 is used because it is the resolution the original study established and its groups do correspond — but the steadier figure belongs on the page next to it, not in a footnote. Read the six as a map of similarity, not as a classification with hard edges.

Real Estate is excluded, not missing

6 of the 941 companies in the release sit in Real Estate. Too few to form a group of their own, they would be either stranded as a cluster of their own or absorbed into one they have nothing in common with, so they are left out entirely — the same exclusion the original study made. 935 companies are grouped.

Why the cluster share is not the headline

The clusters account for 56.6% of the variance against 13.6% for the 9 GICS sectors, but the clusters were fitted to maximise exactly that quantity and the sectors were not — on its own the comparison proves nothing. The 59 sub-industries are the real test: a hand-built taxonomy with 10 times as many groups as there are clusters, reaching 27.3%. That gap is the finding.

Names are generated, not chosen

Each group is named from its own two strongest analytical families. Nobody writes these labels, which is why they read plainly — and why they stay correct after a release moves the boundaries. Group numbers run largest-first and are stable within a release, but not across releases: C3 next month need not be C3 today.

Which profile is each company in?

This page shows the structure. Inside ALB Equity, every one of the 935 companies carries its group, its distance from the centre of it, and the strongest names within each profile by the engine’s own ranking.