Home Compare GTT.PA vs MA
Stock Comparison · Structural lead, mixed market

Gaztransport & Technigaz vs Mastercard: Which Stock Looks Stronger in 2026?

Structurally, Gaztransport & Technigaz has the edge, driven primarily by growth. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. On the market side, Gaztransport & Technigaz is in better shape — its trend is intact while Mastercard's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Gaztransport & Technigaz's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.

The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.

Updated 2026-04-05

The clearest score difference appears in growth.

Trajectory Similarity
0.62
Moderately similar
Peer-set rank: #11
within Gaztransport & Technigaz SA's functional peer set

This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.

The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.

The clearest structural overlap shows up in operating margin level and capital structure.

Similarity drivers
operating margin levelcapital structure
What reduces the match
revenue growth trajectory
How to read the score
0.85–1.00 · Very similar0.70–0.84 · Similar0.55–0.69 · Moderately similarbelow 0.55 · Loose match
Peer-Relative Score
GTT.PA
Gaztransport & Technigaz SA
77
Peer-Score
Signal qualityMedium
vs
MA
Mastercard Incorporated
70
Peer-Score
Signal qualityMedium

Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.

The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.

Dimension spread: GTT.PA vs MA Profitability 96 88 Stability 73 67 Valuation 66 58 Growth 70 62 GTT.PA MA
Gap Ranking
#1 Growth +8
#2 Profitability +8
#3 Valuation +8
#4 Stability +6
Price Setup

Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.

Price setup map for GTT.PA and MA Stronger + cheaper Stronger + richer Weaker + cheaper Weaker + richer GTT.PAMA Relative valuation Structural strength

Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for Gaztransport & Technigaz SA.

Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.

Relative Position vs Comparable Companies
Growth
Both look solid on growth, though Gaztransport & Technigaz SA still holds the stronger peer position.
Profitability
The same pattern holds on profitability: both sit in the stronger range, with Gaztransport & Technigaz SA still higher.
Growth — Dominant Gap
GTT.PA
70
MA
62
Gap+8in favour of GTT.PA

The current lead is backed by a stronger multi-year growth trajectory.

What else supports the lead

Profitability adds a second meaningful layer to the lead, with a 6.8-point operating margin advantage.

What this means for the comparison

The stronger score is reinforced by a wider profile that points in the same direction.

Explore full peer positioning in AssetNext

Break down the GTT.PA vs MA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.

Explore full breakdown →
Similar growth-and-profitability comparisons

Explore how GTT.PA and MA 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.

How AssetNext Peer Scores Work

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.