Charter Communications leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Telecom Italia S.p.A still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Telecom Italia S.p.A 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. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (CHTR: Nasdaq 100, TIT.MI: STOXX 600).
The comparison is mainly decided in valuation, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. The overall score gap is 13 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 TIT.MI share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Charter Communications and Telecom Italia S.p.A each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Telecom Italia S.p.A. still looks cheaper, even though Charter Communications, Inc. remains structurally stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CHTR and TIT.MI each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 22.3 turns lower.
On the market side, Telecom Italia S.p.A carries the stronger trend while Charter Communications's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
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 TIT.MI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CHTR and TIT.MI 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.