Supplier · Peer benchmark
Peer comparison
How Tinopolis Interactive Limited stacks up against suppliers competing for the same workloads — based on overlap with its 4 signature CPV codes over the last 24 months.
Value band:
/
CohortTinopolis Interactive Limited(You)KPMG LLPMOTT MACDONALD LIMITEDTHE GROWTH COMPANY LIMITEDTHE CENTRAL BRITISH FUND FOR WORLD JEWISH RELIEFBirmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
iAuto-picked from 4 signature CPV codes · last 24 months overlap
Metric | KP KPMG LLP Peer · rank #1 | MM MOTT MACDONALD LIMITED Peer · rank #2 | TG THE GROWTH COMPANY LIMITED Peer · rank #3 | TI Tinopolis Interactive Limited (You) · target supplier | TC THE CENTRAL BRITISH FUND FOR WORLD JEWISH RELIEF Peer · rank #5 | BA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01ActivityVolume, scale, freshness | ||||||
| 12-month contractedAward value, last 12m | £324.0m | £59.0m | £91k | — | — | — |
| Framework headroomPer-supplier share of framework ceilings | £44.5m | £22k | — | — | — | — |
| Total awarded (lifetime)All time, all contracts | £4.7bn | £1.5bn | £456.4m | £155k(−100%) | £35.2m | £100.5m |
| Contracts won (12m)Distinct awards last year | 97 | 75 | 11 | 2(−97%) | — | |
How to read a target cell
The target column carries a delta — value compared to the peer median for that row. Direction-of-good varies by metric, so deltas are neutral.
Peer cell£499m(peer median £255m)
→
Target cell£11.7m(−97% vs median)
Money:
£N.Nm, £Nk, £N.NbnPercent: 42% · pp delta: (+12pp)Day delta: (−149 days) · missing: —