Sodexo holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and stability adding further support. Bouygues still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Bouygues carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Sodexo's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Sodexo, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest score difference appears in profitability, while stability still leans the other way. Sodexo S.A. leads by 11 points on the overall comparison score.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
Most of the shared profile comes through margin consistency and capital structure.
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.
Sodexo S.A. and Bouygues SA look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Sodexo S.A..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Return on equity adds support too, with a 9.9-point advantage.
There is still a strong counterforce in stability, so the lead stays clear without becoming a sweep.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with stability adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the EN.PA vs SW.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how EN.PA and SW.PA 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.
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.