Okta holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and stability adding further support. Mandatum Oyj still leads on valuation and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Mandatum Oyj carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Okta's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Okta, 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 (MANTA.HE: STOXX 600, OKTA: Russell 1000).
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. Okta, Inc. leads by 11 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity points to a meaningful structural match, though not a tight one.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and revenue stability.
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.
Okta, Inc. still looks cheaper, even though Mandatum Oyj remains structurally stronger.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 38-point operating margin advantage.
Stability still leans toward Mandatum Oyj, so the lead is real without reading as one-way.
The profitability edge is decisive, even though current pricing and stability still lean somewhat toward Mandatum Oyj.
Break down the MANTA.HE vs OKTA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how MANTA.HE and OKTA 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.