Interesting, but their methodology seems odd.
IF I enter IBM, they rate it 80/89 (89 being best in "peer group"), then they state how much you "lost" by not being as good as the best. Ok, but....
I type in Intel, and it puts it in a different peer group and gives it a 72/83 rating. So the amount you "lose" by not being as good as the best cannot be compared to the person at IBM.
I'm sure that there are many workers at Intel that are in very comparable positions at IBM, so this seems odd. Some good information there, thanks for posting it, I would just be careful with some of their analysis.