The structural profiles are close, with TE Connectivity carrying a narrow edge on growth. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. In the market, Littelfuse carries the stronger setup — intact trend against TE Connectivity's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with TE Connectivity, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (LFUS: Russell 1000, TEL: S&P 500).
The comparison is mainly decided in growth, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight.
Both operate in: Electronic Components
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. LFUS and TEL share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Littelfuse and TE Connectivity 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 growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Littelfuse, Inc..
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where LFUS and TEL each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Littelfuse, Inc. still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
Growth is the clearest driver, and profitability also supports TE Connectivity plc's broader structural position.
Break down the LFUS vs TEL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how LFUS and TEL 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.