Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) Stock Competitors & Peer Comparison
See 1181.HK's competitors and their performance on the HKSE and across the wider stock market.
Peer Comparison Table: Restaurants Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more for 1181.HK and its HKSE peers.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1181.HK | HK$0.09 | -9.00% | 97.9M | -4.86 | -HK$0.02 | N/A |
| 9987.HK | HK$336.80 | -1.86% | 117.6B | 16.41 | HK$20.52 | +2.46% |
| 4337.HK | HK$58.00 | +0.00% | 66.1B | 14.80 | HK$3.92 | N/A |
| 6862.HK | HK$11.26 | -1.23% | 61B | 13.81 | HK$0.82 | +6.41% |
| 1364.HK | HK$21.54 | -0.74% | 51.2B | 16.56 | HK$1.30 | +4.32% |
| 0999.HK | HK$7.02 | -0.14% | 8.3B | 19.41 | HK$0.36 | N/A |
| 2589.HK | HK$107.50 | +7.72% | 6.4B | 19.30 | HK$5.57 | N/A |
| 9658.HK | HK$10.60 | -1.76% | 6.2B | 22.57 | HK$0.47 | N/A |
| 1405.HK | HK$36.42 | -0.92% | 4.8B | 30.81 | HK$1.18 | N/A |
| 6831.HK | HK$6.26 | -2.34% | 4.1B | 6.73 | HK$0.93 | N/A |
Stock Comparison
Yum China Holdings, Inc. (HKSE: 9987.HK)
1181.HK vs 9987.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 9987.HK has a market cap of 117.6B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 9987.HK trades at HK$336.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 9987.HK's P/E ratio is 16.41. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 9987.HK's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 9987.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 9987.HK's competition here
Starbucks-t (HKSE: 4337.HK)
1181.HK vs 4337.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 4337.HK has a market cap of 66.1B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 4337.HK trades at HK$58.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 4337.HK's P/E ratio is 14.80. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 4337.HK's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is not fully comparable compared to 4337.HK. This indicates unavailable risk data in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 4337.HK's competition here
Haidilao International Holding Ltd. (HKSE: 6862.HK)
1181.HK vs 6862.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 6862.HK has a market cap of 61B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 6862.HK trades at HK$11.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 6862.HK's P/E ratio is 13.81. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 6862.HK's ROE of +0.41%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 6862.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 6862.HK's competition here
Guming (HKSE: 1364.HK)
1181.HK vs 1364.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 1364.HK has a market cap of 51.2B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 1364.HK trades at HK$21.54.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 1364.HK's P/E ratio is 16.56. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 1364.HK's ROE of +0.51%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 1364.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 1364.HK's competition here
Xiaocaiyuan International Holding Ltd. (HKSE: 0999.HK)
1181.HK vs 0999.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 0999.HK has a market cap of 8.3B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 0999.HK trades at HK$7.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 0999.HK's P/E ratio is 19.41. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 0999.HK's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 0999.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 0999.HK's competition here
Auntea Jenny (Shanghai) Industrial Co., Ltd. (HKSE: 2589.HK)
1181.HK vs 2589.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 2589.HK has a market cap of 6.4B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 2589.HK trades at HK$107.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 2589.HK's P/E ratio is 19.30. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 2589.HK's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 2589.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 2589.HK's competition here
Super Hi International Holding Ltd. (HKSE: 9658.HK)
1181.HK vs 9658.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 9658.HK has a market cap of 6.2B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 9658.HK trades at HK$10.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 9658.HK's P/E ratio is 22.57. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 9658.HK's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 9658.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 9658.HK's competition here
DPC Dash Ltd (HKSE: 1405.HK)
1181.HK vs 1405.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 1405.HK has a market cap of 4.8B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 1405.HK trades at HK$36.42.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 1405.HK's P/E ratio is 30.81. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 1405.HK's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 1405.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 1405.HK's competition here
Green Tea Group Limited (HKSE: 6831.HK)
1181.HK vs 6831.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 6831.HK has a market cap of 4.1B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 6831.HK trades at HK$6.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 6831.HK's P/E ratio is 6.73. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 6831.HK's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 6831.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 6831.HK's competition here
Café de Coral Holdings Limited (HKSE: 0341.HK)
1181.HK vs 0341.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 0341.HK has a market cap of 3B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 0341.HK trades at HK$5.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 0341.HK's P/E ratio is 18.12. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 0341.HK's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 0341.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 0341.HK's competition here
Guangzhou Xiao Noodles Catering Management Co Ltd Class H (HKSE: 2408.HK)
1181.HK vs 2408.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 2408.HK has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 2408.HK trades at HK$3.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 2408.HK's P/E ratio is 17.00. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 2408.HK's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 2408.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 2408.HK's competition here
Helens International Holdings Company Limited (HKSE: 9869.HK)
1181.HK vs 9869.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 9869.HK has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 9869.HK trades at HK$1.85.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 9869.HK's P/E ratio is -32.55. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 9869.HK's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 9869.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 9869.HK's competition here
Tam Jai International Co. Limited (HKSE: 2217.HK)
1181.HK vs 2217.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 2217.HK has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 2217.HK trades at HK$1.57.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 2217.HK's P/E ratio is 26.17. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 2217.HK's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 2217.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 2217.HK's competition here
Jiumaojiu International Holdings Limited (HKSE: 9922.HK)
1181.HK vs 9922.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 9922.HK has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 9922.HK trades at HK$1.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 9922.HK's P/E ratio is 29.17. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 9922.HK's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 9922.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 9922.HK's competition here
Nayuki Holdings Limited (HKSE: 2150.HK)
1181.HK vs 2150.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 2150.HK has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 2150.HK trades at HK$0.76.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 2150.HK's P/E ratio is -4.87. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 2150.HK's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 2150.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 2150.HK's competition here
Tai Hing Group Holdings Limited (HKSE: 6811.HK)
1181.HK vs 6811.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 6811.HK has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 6811.HK trades at HK$1.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 6811.HK's P/E ratio is 18.90. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 6811.HK's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 6811.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 6811.HK's competition here
Best Food Holding Company Limited (HKSE: 1488.HK)
1181.HK vs 1488.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 1488.HK has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 1488.HK trades at HK$0.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 1488.HK's P/E ratio is -4.51. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 1488.HK's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 1488.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 1488.HK's competition here
Lippo China Resources Limited (HKSE: 0156.HK)
1181.HK vs 0156.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 0156.HK has a market cap of 918.7M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 0156.HK trades at HK$1.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 0156.HK's P/E ratio is -3.17. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 0156.HK's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is similarly volatile compared to 0156.HK. This indicates similar risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 0156.HK's competition here
Ajisen (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 0538.HK)
1181.HK vs 0538.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 0538.HK has a market cap of 916.9M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 0538.HK trades at HK$0.84.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 0538.HK's P/E ratio is 89.08. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 0538.HK's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 0538.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 0538.HK's competition here
Taste Gourmet Group Limited (HKSE: 8371.HK)
1181.HK vs 8371.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8371.HK has a market cap of 723M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8371.HK trades at HK$1.89.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8371.HK's P/E ratio is 5.74. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8371.HK's ROE of +0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is similarly volatile compared to 8371.HK. This indicates similar risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8371.HK's competition here
Fairwood Holdings Limited (HKSE: 0052.HK)
1181.HK vs 0052.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 0052.HK has a market cap of 577.8M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 0052.HK trades at HK$4.46.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 0052.HK's P/E ratio is 16.52. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 0052.HK's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 0052.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 0052.HK's competition here
K2 F&B Holdings Limited (HKSE: 2108.HK)
1181.HK vs 2108.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 2108.HK has a market cap of 372M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 2108.HK trades at HK$0.47.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 2108.HK's P/E ratio is 6.45. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 2108.HK's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 2108.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 2108.HK's competition here
Lippo Limited (HKSE: 0226.HK)
1181.HK vs 0226.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 0226.HK has a market cap of 340.3M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 0226.HK trades at HK$0.69.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 0226.HK's P/E ratio is -0.34. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 0226.HK's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 0226.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 0226.HK's competition here
China Demeter Financial Investments Limited (HKSE: 8120.HK)
1181.HK vs 8120.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8120.HK has a market cap of 312M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8120.HK trades at HK$2.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8120.HK's P/E ratio is -54.35. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8120.HK's ROE of -0.59%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8120.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8120.HK's competition here
Xiabuxiabu Catering Management (China) Holdings Co., Ltd. (HKSE: 0520.HK)
1181.HK vs 0520.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 0520.HK has a market cap of 273.2M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 0520.HK trades at HK$0.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 0520.HK's P/E ratio is -0.84. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 0520.HK's ROE of -0.51%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 0520.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 0520.HK's competition here
Tao Heung Holdings Limited (HKSE: 0573.HK)
1181.HK vs 0573.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 0573.HK has a market cap of 263.7M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 0573.HK trades at HK$0.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 0573.HK's P/E ratio is -5.00. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 0573.HK's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is similarly volatile compared to 0573.HK. This indicates similar risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 0573.HK's competition here
Tsui Wah Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1314.HK)
1181.HK vs 1314.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 1314.HK has a market cap of 247.8M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 1314.HK trades at HK$0.19.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 1314.HK's P/E ratio is 6.59. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 1314.HK's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 1314.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 1314.HK's competition here
LH Group Limited (HKSE: 1978.HK)
1181.HK vs 1978.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 1978.HK has a market cap of 220M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 1978.HK trades at HK$0.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 1978.HK's P/E ratio is -6.86. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 1978.HK's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 1978.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 1978.HK's competition here
Snack Empire Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1843.HK)
1181.HK vs 1843.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 1843.HK has a market cap of 199.2M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 1843.HK trades at HK$0.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 1843.HK's P/E ratio is -19.47. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 1843.HK's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 1843.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 1843.HK's competition here
Carrianna Group Holdings Company Limited (HKSE: 0126.HK)
1181.HK vs 0126.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 0126.HK has a market cap of 166.6M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 0126.HK trades at HK$0.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 0126.HK's P/E ratio is -0.74. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 0126.HK's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 0126.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 0126.HK's competition here
StarGlory Holdings Company Limited (HKSE: 8213.HK)
1181.HK vs 8213.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8213.HK has a market cap of 132.1M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8213.HK trades at HK$0.24.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8213.HK's P/E ratio is -3.93. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8213.HK's ROE of +0.31%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8213.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8213.HK's competition here
Kafelaku Coffee Holding Limited (HKSE: 1869.HK)
1181.HK vs 1869.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 1869.HK has a market cap of 118.9M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 1869.HK trades at HK$0.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 1869.HK's P/E ratio is -2.20. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 1869.HK's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 1869.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 1869.HK's competition here
Easyhold Group Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1703.HK)
1181.HK vs 1703.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 1703.HK has a market cap of 104.7M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 1703.HK trades at HK$0.91.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 1703.HK's P/E ratio is -7.28. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 1703.HK's ROE of +0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 1703.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 1703.HK's competition here
1957 & Co. (Hospitality) Limited (HKSE: 8495.HK)
1181.HK vs 8495.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8495.HK has a market cap of 92.2M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8495.HK trades at HK$0.24.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8495.HK's P/E ratio is 25.08. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8495.HK's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is similarly volatile compared to 8495.HK. This indicates similar risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8495.HK's competition here
JLogo Holdings Limited (HKSE: 8527.HK)
1181.HK vs 8527.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8527.HK has a market cap of 87.5M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8527.HK trades at HK$0.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8527.HK's P/E ratio is -3.28. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8527.HK's ROE of +0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8527.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8527.HK's competition here
Future Bright Holdings Limited (HKSE: 0703.HK)
1181.HK vs 0703.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 0703.HK has a market cap of 77.1M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 0703.HK trades at HK$0.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 0703.HK's P/E ratio is 12.83. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 0703.HK's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is similarly volatile compared to 0703.HK. This indicates similar risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 0703.HK's competition here
CBK Holdings Limited (HKSE: 8428.HK)
1181.HK vs 8428.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8428.HK has a market cap of 76.1M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8428.HK trades at HK$0.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8428.HK's P/E ratio is -2.92. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8428.HK's ROE of +0.96%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8428.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8428.HK's competition here
Easyhold Group Holdings Limited (HKSE: 2946.HK)
1181.HK vs 2946.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 2946.HK has a market cap of 73.6M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 2946.HK trades at HK$0.64.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 2946.HK's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 2946.HK's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is similarly volatile compared to 2946.HK. This indicates similar risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 2946.HK's competition here
Jin Mi Fang Group Holdings Limited (HKSE: 8300.HK)
1181.HK vs 8300.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8300.HK has a market cap of 66.1M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8300.HK trades at HK$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8300.HK's P/E ratio is 500.00. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8300.HK's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8300.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8300.HK's competition here
Shanghai XNG Holdings Limited (HKSE: 3666.HK)
1181.HK vs 3666.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 3666.HK has a market cap of 63.7M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 3666.HK trades at HK$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 3666.HK's P/E ratio is -0.58. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 3666.HK's ROE of +0.72%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 3666.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 3666.HK's competition here
MS Concept Limited (HKSE: 8447.HK)
1181.HK vs 8447.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8447.HK has a market cap of 63M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8447.HK trades at HK$0.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8447.HK's P/E ratio is -2.08. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8447.HK's ROE of +0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8447.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8447.HK's competition here
Fulum Group Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1443.HK)
1181.HK vs 1443.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 1443.HK has a market cap of 62.4M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 1443.HK trades at HK$0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 1443.HK's P/E ratio is 8.00. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 1443.HK's ROE of -0.41%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 1443.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 1443.HK's competition here
G-Vision International (Holdings) Limited (HKSE: 0657.HK)
1181.HK vs 0657.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 0657.HK has a market cap of 48.7M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 0657.HK trades at HK$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 0657.HK's P/E ratio is -8.93. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 0657.HK's ROE of +0.84%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 0657.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 0657.HK's competition here
THAC Group (Holdings) Limited (HKSE: 8232.HK)
1181.HK vs 8232.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8232.HK has a market cap of 41.8M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8232.HK trades at HK$0.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8232.HK's P/E ratio is -3.93. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8232.HK's ROE of -2.36%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8232.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8232.HK's competition here
New Amante Group Limited (HKSE: 8412.HK)
1181.HK vs 8412.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8412.HK has a market cap of 38.5M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8412.HK trades at HK$0.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8412.HK's P/E ratio is -1.22. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8412.HK's ROE of -0.55%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is similarly volatile compared to 8412.HK. This indicates similar risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8412.HK's competition here
Top Standard Corporation (HKSE: 8510.HK)
1181.HK vs 8510.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8510.HK has a market cap of 34.6M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8510.HK trades at HK$0.17.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8510.HK's P/E ratio is -5.59. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8510.HK's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8510.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8510.HK's competition here
Bar Pacific Group Holdings Limited (HKSE: 8432.HK)
1181.HK vs 8432.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8432.HK has a market cap of 29.9M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8432.HK trades at HK$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8432.HK's P/E ratio is -1.69. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8432.HK's ROE of +0.82%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8432.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8432.HK's competition here
XinXiang Era Group Company Limited (HKSE: 8519.HK)
1181.HK vs 8519.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8519.HK has a market cap of 25.2M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8519.HK trades at HK$0.17.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8519.HK's P/E ratio is -4.41. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8519.HK's ROE of +2.90%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is similarly volatile compared to 8519.HK. This indicates similar risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8519.HK's competition here
Tasty Concepts Holding Limited (HKSE: 8096.HK)
1181.HK vs 8096.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8096.HK has a market cap of 23.1M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8096.HK trades at HK$0.12.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8096.HK's P/E ratio is -3.07. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8096.HK's ROE of -1.12%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is similarly volatile compared to 8096.HK. This indicates similar risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8096.HK's competition here
Luk Hing Entertainment Group Holdings Limited (HKSE: 8052.HK)
1181.HK vs 8052.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8052.HK has a market cap of 22.5M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8052.HK trades at HK$0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8052.HK's P/E ratio is 1.43. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8052.HK's ROE of -0.85%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8052.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8052.HK's competition here
Life Concepts Holdings Limited (HKSE: 8056.HK)
1181.HK vs 8056.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8056.HK has a market cap of 18.1M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8056.HK trades at HK$0.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8056.HK's P/E ratio is 0.24. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8056.HK's ROE of -1.11%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8056.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8056.HK's competition here
Simplicity Holding Limited (HKSE: 8367.HK)
1181.HK vs 8367.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8367.HK has a market cap of 17.2M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8367.HK trades at HK$0.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8367.HK's P/E ratio is 42.09. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8367.HK's ROE of +26.86%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8367.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8367.HK's competition here
Longhui International Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1007.HK)
1181.HK vs 1007.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 1007.HK has a market cap of 13.3M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 1007.HK trades at HK$0.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 1007.HK's P/E ratio is -0.37. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 1007.HK's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 1007.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 1007.HK's competition here
E-Station Green Technology Group Co., Limited (HKSE: 8475.HK)
1181.HK vs 8475.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8475.HK has a market cap of 4.7M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8475.HK trades at HK$0.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8475.HK's P/E ratio is 0.10. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8475.HK's ROE of -2.53%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8475.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8475.HK's competition here
Dragon King Group Holdings Limited (HKSE: 8493.HK)
1181.HK vs 8493.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 8493.HK has a market cap of 2M. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 8493.HK trades at HK$0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 8493.HK's P/E ratio is -0.31. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 8493.HK's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 8493.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 8493.HK's competition here
Hop Hing Group Holdings Limited (HKSE: 0047.HK)
1181.HK vs 0047.HK Comparison July 2026
Tang Palace (China) Holdings Limited (HKSE: 1181.HK) plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance on the HKSE reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, 1181.HK stands at 97.9M. In comparison, 0047.HK has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, 1181.HK is priced at HK$0.09 on the HKSE, while 0047.HK trades at HK$0.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
1181.HK currently has a P/E ratio of -4.86, whereas 0047.HK's P/E ratio is 6.61. In terms of profitability, 1181.HK's ROE is -0.37%, compared to 0047.HK's ROE of -0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, 1181.HK is less volatile compared to 0047.HK. This indicates lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for 1181.HK.Check 0047.HK's competition here