Teleperformance SE holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Elis still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward Elis, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Teleperformance SE, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The page question resolves through stability, where Elis SA holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours Teleperformance SE.
Both operate in: Specialty Business Services
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ELIS.PA and TEP.PA share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Elis and Teleperformance SE 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 structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Elis SA.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
Elis SA still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the ELIS.PA vs TEP.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ELIS.PA and TEP.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.