The structural profiles are close, with Carrier Global carrying a narrow edge on valuation. Teleperformance SE still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward Teleperformance SE, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Carrier Global, 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 (CARR: Russell 1000, TEP.PA: STOXX 600).
On valuation, the clearer edge sits with Teleperformance SE, while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
This comparison is anchored in 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 match is driven mainly by investment intensity and margin consistency.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Carrier Global Corporation still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for Teleperformance SE.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CARR and TEP.PA each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The peer-relative valuation gap is very wide, with the stronger side also looking meaningfully cheaper.
Teleperformance SE still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Valuation is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CARR vs TEP.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CARR 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.