The structural profiles are close, with Teleperformance SE carrying a narrow edge on stability. ISS A/S still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, ISS A/S carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Teleperformance SE's broken trend. 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.
Stability points more clearly toward ISS A/S, even if the broader score still leans toward Teleperformance SE.
Both operate in: Specialty Business Services
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. ISS.CO and TEP.PA share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how ISS A/S 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.
The clearest separation appears in stability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Teleperformance SE and ISS A/S look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward Teleperformance SE.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
On the market side, ISS A/S carries the stronger trend while Teleperformance SE's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Stability points one way, even though the overall score still points the other way.
Break down the ISS.CO vs TEP.PA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how ISS.CO 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.