Koninklijke KPN holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Charter Communications still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Koninklijke KPN holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Koninklijke KPN's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Most of the visible separation comes from stability. The overall score gap is 11 points in favour of Koninklijke KPN N.V..
Both operate in: Telecom Services
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CHTR and KPN.AS share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Charter Communications and Koninklijke KPN each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. is cheaper, but Charter Communications, Inc. is still stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Charter Communications, with a forward P/E that is 13.2 turns lower there.
The stability lead is clear, but pricing and valuation still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the CHTR vs KPN.AS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CHTR and KPN.AS 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.