Structurally, Bouygues and Teleperformance SE are closely matched — neither holds a meaningful edge overall. Teleperformance SE still leads on growth and profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Bouygues is in better shape — its trend is intact while Teleperformance SE's trend has broken down.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
On stability, the clearer edge sits with Bouygues SA, while the broader score remains level.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
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 clearest separation appears in stability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Teleperformance SE and Bouygues SA look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Teleperformance SE.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where EN.PA and TEP.PA each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Profitability still favours Teleperformance SE, with a 12-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
Stability provides the clearer read here, while the broader score remains level.
Break down the EN.PA vs TEP.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how EN.PA and TEP.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.
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.