The structural profiles are close, with Indra Sistemas, carrying a narrow edge on valuation. Accenture still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Indra Sistemas, is in better shape — its trend is intact while Accenture's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Indra Sistemas,'s lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (ACN: S&P 500, IDR.MC: STOXX 600).
On valuation, the clearer edge sits with Accenture plc, while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
Both operate in: Information Technology Services
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ACN and IDR.MC share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Accenture and Indra Sistemas, each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Indra Sistemas, S.A. is cheaper, but Accenture plc is still stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The main spread comes from a meaningfully cheaper peer-relative valuation.
Accenture plc still looks less cycle-sensitive — that keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
Valuation is the clearest driver of the lead, with stability adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the ACN vs IDR.MC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ACN and IDR.MC 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.