Accenture holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and profitability adding further support. In the market, Nagarro SE carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Accenture's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Accenture, but the market is not currently confirming it.
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, NA9.DE: HDAX).
The lead is spread across valuation and profitability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. The overall score gap is 12 points in favour of Accenture plc.
Both operate in: Information Technology Services
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ACN and NA9.DE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Accenture and Nagarro SE 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.
The two profiles are relatively close, but the price setup still leans toward Accenture plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where ACN and NA9.DE each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 2.2 turns lower.
On the market side, Nagarro SE carries the stronger trend while Accenture's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Valuation is the clearest driver, and profitability also supports Accenture plc's broader structural position.
Break down the ACN vs NA9.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ACN and NA9.DE 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.