The structural profiles are close, with Capgemini SE carrying a narrow edge on growth. TE Connectivity still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, TE Connectivity carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Capgemini SE's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Capgemini SE, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
On growth, the clearer edge sits with TE Connectivity plc, while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
The strongest overlap appears in revenue growth trajectory and capital structure.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against TE Connectivity plc.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The main growth separation is wide, driven by a meaningfully stronger expansion profile.
On the market side, TE Connectivity carries the stronger trend while Capgemini SE's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CAP.PA vs TEL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CAP.PA and TEL 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.