Tele2 AB (publ) holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and valuation adding further support. Temenos does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. The market setup is currently leaning toward Temenos, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Tele2 AB (publ), but the market is not currently confirming it.
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 lead is spread across growth and valuation, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. The overall score gap is 17 points in favour of Tele2 AB (publ).
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in revenue stability and operating margin level.
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.
Tele2 AB (publ) looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where TEL2-B.ST and TEMN.SW 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.
Temenos AG still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Growth is the clearest driver, and valuation also supports Tele2 AB (publ)'s broader structural position.
Break down the TEL2-B.ST vs TEMN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how TEL2-B.ST and TEMN.SW 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.