Quanta Services holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and stability adding further support. FDJU.PA still leads on profitability and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Quanta Services is in better shape — its trend is intact while FDJU.PA's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Quanta Services's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (FDJU.PA: STOXX 600, PWR: Russell 1000).
The comparison is mainly decided in growth, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. Quanta Services, Inc. leads by 19 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
Most of the shared profile comes through recent revenue growth and investment intensity.
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.
Neither company combines the stronger profile with the cheaper valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where FDJU.PA and PWR each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
FDJU.PA still looks less cycle-sensitive — that keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
The growth edge is decisive, even though current pricing and stability still lean somewhat toward FDJU.PA.
Break down the FDJU.PA vs PWR comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how FDJU.PA and PWR 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.