The structural profiles are close, with Endesa, carrying a narrow edge on profitability. TotalEnergies SE still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, TotalEnergies SE carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Endesa,'s broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Endesa,, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
The result is anchored in profitability, but growth also reinforces the same direction.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
The match is driven mainly by capital structure and revenue growth trajectory.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Endesa, S.A. looks stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for TotalEnergies SE.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Return on equity adds support too, with a 14.6-point advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for TotalEnergies SE, with a forward P/E that is 8.4 turns lower there.
The lead is built on both profitability and valuation — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the ELE.MC vs TTE.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ELE.MC and TTE.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.