Sopra Steria holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Capgemini SE still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Sopra Steria holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Sopra Steria's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
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.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in profitability.
Both operate in: Information Technology Services
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CAP.PA and SOP.PA share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Capgemini SE and Sopra Steria each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Sopra Steria Group SA and Capgemini SE look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Sopra Steria Group SA.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CAP.PA and SOP.PA each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability gap is clear, with the stronger side earning materially better operating marks.
Growth still leans toward Capgemini SE, so the lead is real without reading as one-way.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CAP.PA vs SOP.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CAP.PA and SOP.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.