Is it acceptable to compare your experimental results with the claimed results from another paper? Consider a scenario where one (say Mr. X) has implemented a method for solving a problem, experimented it on a dataset D and obtained significant results. The obtained results seem to be better than a set of results published in a paper P in a reputable journal J which solves the same problem experimented on D by some another author.

Mr. X decides to cite P and directly compare the claimed results published in it with his own.

The question is how much necessary (in the perspective of a reviewer) is it for Mr. X to reproduce the results published in P by himself if he is to publish in


a) the same publisher as journal J?
b) a totally different journal publisher?


Most importantly, what would be the case if J is an IEEE journal?
In theory, if a result is published you can use it as is. 

In practice, it is better to replicate it yourself. That way you can really make certain you are comparing like with like. Research often involves a very long chain of decisions that cannot all be published in an article. Good research documents that somewhere else, but it is easy for honest mistakes or omissions to seep in. So that way it could easily happen that Mr. X's design is subtly different from the design used in paper P, and the difference in result are due to that difference in design rather than the difference in method. You can rule that out by replicating the results in paper P yourself.