CX Outsourcing Review

Birchy
Outsourcing & BPO
Research

Teleperformance review

Assessed against a published 100-point framework from public sources, not from a client engagement: Teleperformance scores 78.8/100 and is tiered Leader on 10 evidence claims, each graded and sourced below.

Headquarters
France — Paris no source recorded
Official site
tp.com
Operating since
1978 no source recorded
Score
78.8 of 100 — the same score in both editions
Global Edition
Leader · rank #1 of 29
European Edition
Leader · rank #1 of 8
Delivery Proof (of 45)
33.2
Capability Fit (of 55)
45.6

Evidence on file

Each line is a datapoint with its grade. Grades are the ones the anchors act on: a sub-criterion scored 5 requires at least one E1 or E2 source, and evidence that is entirely E3 caps the sub-criterion at 3.

10 claims on this sheet, by grade: E1 3 E2 2 E3 4 E5 2 Counts sum above 10 because 1 claim cites more than one grade.

Where this provider stands out

Computed from this provider’s anchor scores against the 29-provider field it is scored in, from the 10 public claims above: the sub-criteria where it sits furthest above the field median, and furthest below. Selection is by distance from the field, not by raw score — a 5 where most of the field scores 5 says nothing. These are scores for what a provider publishes, so a low score can mean a weak record or a quiet one, and this block cannot tell them apart.

Furthest above the field

  • employee-side signal A4.1 5/5 — 4 above the field median of 1; joint highest, with 2 of 28 others
  • payment & data handling A3.2 4/5 — 2 above the field median of 2; joint highest, with 1 of 28 others
  • native-language delivery B2.1 5/5 — 2 above the field median of 3; joint highest, with 6 of 28 others

Furthest below the field

No sub-criterion sits below the field median.

Criterion scores

Sub-criterion anchor scores in criterion order, with the weighted criterion total computed from them. Multiply each anchor by its sub-criterion weight over five and sum: that is the whole arithmetic, and it is why this total can be checked without taking anyone's word.

Code Criterion Sub-criterion anchors Weighted Max Note
A1 Independent client evidence 3 / 3 / 2 7.6 14 Analyst-equivalence rule applied (reference checks within Everest assessment); cases largely anonymized.
A2 Market presence & tenure 5 / 5 / 5 8 8
A3 Certifications & compliance 3 / 4 / 3 8 12 Restructured A3. Scope-per-entity unverified.
A4 Delivery stability 5 / 5 6 6 Glassdoor: 4.4 across 75,000+ reviews, above the anchor's 4.0 threshold across at least 25 reviews, with management-response activity present. The anchor's client-review cross-check is not applicable: this provider has no client-review footprint that could contradict it.
A5 Transparency & verifiability 4 / 3 3.6 5 Filings strong; headcount variance noted; pricing opaque.
B1 Service scope & channels 5 / 5 / 5 8 8
B2 Language & geographic reach 5 / 5 / 5 10 10
B3 Quality management system 4 / 3 / 4 7.4 10
B4 Security & data protection operations 4 / 3 / 5 6.6 8
B5 Flexibility & commercial model 1 / 4 / 1 2.6 7
B6 Technology & AI operations 5 / 4 / 4 6 7 B6.2 held at 4 not 5: AI outcome numbers are mostly TP-stated, not client-attributed.
B7 Vertical expertise 5 / 5 5 5

Axis A subtotal 33.2 of 45 · Axis B subtotal 45.6 of 55 · total 78.8 of 100. Each weighted figure is (anchor score ÷ 5) × sub-criterion weight, summed — the rule printed in the appendix.

Flags and open questions

  • Certification scope per entity is not publicly traceable E5 — a buyer should request it directly.
  • A4.1 is now anchored on a recorded rating (Glassdoor 4.4 across 75,000+ reviews, 22 Aug 2026) rather than on an expectation.
  • B6.2 held at 4 not 5 because AI outcome numbers are mostly TP-stated, not client-attributed.
  • Largest remaining evidence gap: Certification scope per entity is not publicly traceable; client-side review evidence does not exist at this scale

Challenge this sheet

Every line above is meant to be checkable. If a datapoint is wrong, out of date, or missing a certificate identifier we could not find, the corrections process is open: submit the evidence and the score is re-derived through the anchors. Facts are correctable; scores follow facts.