Cognizant Technology Solutions holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Rexel does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. 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.
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation leads by 23 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.
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 10.2-point operating margin advantage.
On the market side, Rexel carries the stronger trend while Cognizant Technology Solutions's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Profitability is the clearest driver, and valuation also supports Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation's broader structural position.
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.
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.