Telecom Italia S.p.A holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and stability. Sunrise Communications still leads on valuation and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Telecom Italia S.p.A is in better shape — its trend is intact while Sunrise Communications's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Telecom Italia S.p.A's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the STOXX 600 universe, making them directly comparable.
The clearest separation starts in growth, with profitability adding a second layer of support. Telecom Italia S.p.A. leads by 11 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Telecom Services
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. SUNN.SW and TIT.MI share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Sunrise Communications and Telecom Italia S.p.A each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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 Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a stronger growth profile.
A meaningful counterforce remains in stability, which keeps the comparison from looking completely one-sided.
The growth edge is decisive, even though current pricing and stability still lean somewhat toward Sunrise Communications AG.
Break down the SUNN.SW vs TIT.MI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how SUNN.SW and TIT.MI 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.