Charter Communications holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and stability. Orange still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Orange carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Charter Communications's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Charter Communications, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest separation starts in valuation, but growth adds another real layer to the result. The overall score gap is 22 points in favour of Charter Communications, Inc..
Both operate in: Telecom Services
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CHTR and ORA.PA share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Charter Communications and Orange each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The two profiles are relatively close, but the price setup still leans toward Charter Communications, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 9.1 turns lower.
There is still a strong counterforce in stability, so the lead stays clear without becoming a sweep.
The valuation lead is clear, but pricing and stability still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the CHTR vs ORA.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CHTR and ORA.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.
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.