Zoom Communications leads structurally, with profitability as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. TeamViewer SE does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. On the market side, Zoom Communications is in better shape — its trend is intact while TeamViewer SE's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Zoom Communications's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (TMV.DE: HDAX, ZM: Russell 1000).
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. The overall score gap is 22 points in favour of Zoom Communications, Inc..
Both operate in: Software - Application
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. TMV.DE and ZM share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how TeamViewer SE and Zoom Communications each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Neither company combines the stronger profile with the cheaper valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where TMV.DE and ZM each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 53-point ROIC advantage.
TeamViewer SE still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Profitability is the clearest single gap, but the broader lead is not limited to that alone.
Break down the TMV.DE vs ZM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how TMV.DE and ZM 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.