Cognizant Technology Solutions holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Rexel still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Rexel carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Cognizant Technology Solutions's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Cognizant Technology Solutions, 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 (CTSH: S&P 500, RXL.PA: STOXX 600).
Profitability remains the main source of distance in the comparison. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation leads by 13 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured 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.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Rexel S.A..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CTSH and RXL.PA each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 11.6-point operating margin advantage.
Earnings growth also leans toward RXL.PA, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with valuation adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CTSH vs RXL.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CTSH and RXL.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.