iShares 1-10 Year Laddered Government Bond Index ETF
iShares 1-10 Year Laddered Government Bond Index ETF (CLG.TO) Stock Competitors & Peer Comparison
See (CLG.TO) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Asset Management - Bonds Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLG.TO | CA$17.33 | +0.29% | 721.9M | N/A | N/A | +2.56% |
| ZAG.TO | CA$13.74 | +0.44% | 11.3B | N/A | N/A | +3.59% |
| VAB.TO | CA$22.89 | +0.24% | 5.7B | N/A | N/A | +3.43% |
| ZST.TO | CA$48.97 | +0.02% | 4.9B | N/A | N/A | +3.59% |
| ZCPB.TO | CA$27.93 | +0.22% | 3.8B | N/A | N/A | +2.86% |
| ZFL.TO | CA$12.27 | +0.82% | 3.6B | N/A | N/A | +3.18% |
| ZIC.TO | CA$18.36 | +0.38% | 3.3B | N/A | N/A | +3.88% |
| ZMU.TO | CA$12.83 | +0.86% | 3.2B | N/A | N/A | +4.08% |
| HBB.TO | CA$49.28 | +0.26% | 3.1B | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| FLCP.TO | CA$17.90 | +0.34% | 2.9B | 38.48 | CA$0.47 | +3.56% |
Stock Comparison
CLG.TO vs ZAG.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZAG.TO has a market cap of 11.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZAG.TO trades at CA$13.74.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZAG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZAG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO and ZAG.TO have similar daily volatility (0.29).Check ZAG.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs VAB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, VAB.TO has a market cap of 5.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while VAB.TO trades at CA$22.89.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VAB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VAB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to VAB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check VAB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZST.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZST.TO has a market cap of 4.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZST.TO trades at CA$48.97.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZST.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZST.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZST.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZST.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZCPB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZCPB.TO has a market cap of 3.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZCPB.TO trades at CA$27.93.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZCPB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZCPB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZCPB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZCPB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZFL.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZFL.TO has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZFL.TO trades at CA$12.27.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZFL.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZFL.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to ZFL.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZFL.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZIC.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZIC.TO has a market cap of 3.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZIC.TO trades at CA$18.36.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZIC.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZIC.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to ZIC.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZIC.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZMU.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZMU.TO has a market cap of 3.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZMU.TO trades at CA$12.83.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZMU.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZMU.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to ZMU.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZMU.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs HBB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, HBB.TO has a market cap of 3.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while HBB.TO trades at CA$49.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HBB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HBB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to HBB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check HBB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs FLCP.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, FLCP.TO has a market cap of 2.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while FLCP.TO trades at CA$17.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FLCP.TO's P/E ratio is 38.48. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to FLCP.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to FLCP.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check FLCP.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs NSCB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, NSCB.TO has a market cap of 2.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while NSCB.TO trades at CA$22.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NSCB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to NSCB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to NSCB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check NSCB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs TDB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, TDB.TO has a market cap of 2.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while TDB.TO trades at CA$12.96.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TDB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TDB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to TDB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check TDB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs XSB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, XSB.TO has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while XSB.TO trades at CA$26.94.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XSB.TO's P/E ratio is 19.68. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XSB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to XSB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check XSB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs PCOR.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, PCOR.TO has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while PCOR.TO trades at CA$18.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PCOR.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to PCOR.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to PCOR.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check PCOR.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs CAGG.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, CAGG.TO has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while CAGG.TO trades at CA$44.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CAGG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CAGG.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to CAGG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check CAGG.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZCM.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZCM.TO has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZCM.TO trades at CA$15.69.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZCM.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZCM.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZCM.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZCM.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs NHYB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, NHYB.TO has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while NHYB.TO trades at CA$21.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NHYB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to NHYB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to NHYB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check NHYB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs QBB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, QBB.TO has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while QBB.TO trades at CA$93.12.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas QBB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to QBB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to QBB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check QBB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZJK.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZJK.TO has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZJK.TO trades at CA$18.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZJK.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZJK.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to ZJK.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZJK.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs VSC.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, VSC.TO has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while VSC.TO trades at CA$24.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VSC.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VSC.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to VSC.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check VSC.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs FCGB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, FCGB.TO has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while FCGB.TO trades at CA$21.74.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FCGB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to FCGB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to FCGB.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check FCGB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZHY.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZHY.TO has a market cap of 971.7M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZHY.TO trades at CA$11.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZHY.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZHY.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to ZHY.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZHY.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs RQO.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, RQO.TO has a market cap of 897M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while RQO.TO trades at CA$18.89.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RQO.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RQO.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to RQO.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check RQO.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs TCLB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, TCLB.TO has a market cap of 880M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while TCLB.TO trades at CA$113.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TCLB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TCLB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to TCLB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check TCLB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZDB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZDB.TO has a market cap of 801.6M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZDB.TO trades at CA$15.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZDB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZDB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZDB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZDB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs RQP.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, RQP.TO has a market cap of 739.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while RQP.TO trades at CA$18.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RQP.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RQP.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to RQP.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check RQP.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs CBO.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, CBO.TO has a market cap of 733.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while CBO.TO trades at CA$18.51.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CBO.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CBO.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to CBO.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check CBO.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs IGB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, IGB.TO has a market cap of 685.6M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while IGB.TO trades at CA$18.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IGB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to IGB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to IGB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check IGB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs FGO.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, FGO.TO has a market cap of 637.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while FGO.TO trades at CA$9.97.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FGO.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to FGO.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to FGO.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check FGO.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZLC.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZLC.TO has a market cap of 551.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZLC.TO trades at CA$15.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZLC.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZLC.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZLC.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZLC.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs RQN.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, RQN.TO has a market cap of 532M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while RQN.TO trades at CA$20.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RQN.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RQN.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to RQN.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check RQN.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs QUIG.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, QUIG.TO has a market cap of 523.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while QUIG.TO trades at CA$85.82.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas QUIG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to QUIG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to QUIG.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check QUIG.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs XQB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, XQB.TO has a market cap of 481.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while XQB.TO trades at CA$18.94.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XQB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XQB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to XQB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check XQB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZFS.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZFS.TO has a market cap of 472.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZFS.TO trades at CA$13.89.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZFS.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZFS.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZFS.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZFS.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs HFR.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, HFR.TO has a market cap of 452.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while HFR.TO trades at CA$10.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HFR.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HFR.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to HFR.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check HFR.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZMP.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZMP.TO has a market cap of 430.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZMP.TO trades at CA$13.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZMP.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZMP.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZMP.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZMP.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs VCB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, VCB.TO has a market cap of 408.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while VCB.TO trades at CA$24.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VCB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VCB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to VCB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check VCB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZPS.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZPS.TO has a market cap of 361.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZPS.TO trades at CA$12.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZPS.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZPS.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZPS.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZPS.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZPL.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZPL.TO has a market cap of 329.7M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZPL.TO trades at CA$11.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZPL.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZPL.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZPL.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZPL.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs TUHY.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, TUHY.TO has a market cap of 315.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while TUHY.TO trades at CA$20.79.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TUHY.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TUHY.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to TUHY.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check TUHY.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs TCSB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, TCSB.TO has a market cap of 277.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while TCSB.TO trades at CA$14.81.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TCSB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TCSB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to TCSB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check TCSB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs QEBH.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, QEBH.TO has a market cap of 261.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while QEBH.TO trades at CA$79.46.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas QEBH.TO's P/E ratio is 3.61. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to QEBH.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to QEBH.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check QEBH.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs XIG.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, XIG.TO has a market cap of 261M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while XIG.TO trades at CA$19.87.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XIG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XIG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to XIG.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check XIG.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs XRB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, XRB.TO has a market cap of 257.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while XRB.TO trades at CA$22.91.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XRB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XRB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to XRB.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check XRB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs XHB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, XHB.TO has a market cap of 216.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while XHB.TO trades at CA$19.89.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XHB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XHB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to XHB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check XHB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs FSB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, FSB.TO has a market cap of 208.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while FSB.TO trades at CA$9.66.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FSB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to FSB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to FSB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check FSB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs XSAB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, XSAB.TO has a market cap of 193.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while XSAB.TO trades at CA$18.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XSAB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XSAB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to XSAB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check XSAB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs HTB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, HTB.TO has a market cap of 188.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while HTB.TO trades at CA$59.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HTB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HTB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to HTB.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check HTB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZCB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZCB.TO has a market cap of 160.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZCB.TO trades at CA$47.56.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZCB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZCB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZCB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZCB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs RBO.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, RBO.TO has a market cap of 156.7M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while RBO.TO trades at CA$18.84.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RBO.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RBO.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to RBO.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check RBO.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZSB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZSB.TO has a market cap of 133.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZSB.TO trades at CA$48.85.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZSB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZSB.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZSB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZSB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs RLB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, RLB.TO has a market cap of 128M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while RLB.TO trades at CA$18.89.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RLB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RLB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to RLB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check RLB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs XSTB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, XSTB.TO has a market cap of 123.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while XSTB.TO trades at CA$19.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XSTB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XSTB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to XSTB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check XSTB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs PTB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, PTB.TO has a market cap of 121.8M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while PTB.TO trades at CA$19.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PTB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to PTB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to PTB.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check PTB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs VGV.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, VGV.TO has a market cap of 111.6M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while VGV.TO trades at CA$22.27.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VGV.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VGV.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to VGV.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check VGV.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs HBND.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, HBND.TO has a market cap of 107M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while HBND.TO trades at CA$13.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HBND.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HBND.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to HBND.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check HBND.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs DCG.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, DCG.TO has a market cap of 100.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while DCG.TO trades at CA$18.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DCG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to DCG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to DCG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check DCG.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ONEB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ONEB.TO has a market cap of 93.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ONEB.TO trades at CA$49.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ONEB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ONEB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ONEB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ONEB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs FLCI.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, FLCI.TO has a market cap of 91M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while FLCI.TO trades at CA$18.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FLCI.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to FLCI.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to FLCI.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check FLCI.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs TULB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, TULB.TO has a market cap of 85.8M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while TULB.TO trades at CA$110.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TULB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TULB.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to TULB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check TULB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs QEBL.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, QEBL.TO has a market cap of 82.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while QEBL.TO trades at CA$78.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas QEBL.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to QEBL.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to QEBL.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check QEBL.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs DXO.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, DXO.TO has a market cap of 80.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while DXO.TO trades at CA$19.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DXO.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to DXO.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to DXO.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check DXO.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZRR.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZRR.TO has a market cap of 79.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZRR.TO trades at CA$14.24.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZRR.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZRR.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to ZRR.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZRR.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ESGB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ESGB.TO has a market cap of 74.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ESGB.TO trades at CA$27.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ESGB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ESGB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ESGB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ESGB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs QHY.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, QHY.TO has a market cap of 59.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while QHY.TO trades at CA$82.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas QHY.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to QHY.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to QHY.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check QHY.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ICPB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ICPB.TO has a market cap of 57.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ICPB.TO trades at CA$9.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ICPB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ICPB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ICPB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ICPB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZMSB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZMSB.TO has a market cap of 57.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZMSB.TO trades at CA$29.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZMSB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZMSB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZMSB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZMSB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs CXF.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, CXF.TO has a market cap of 51.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while CXF.TO trades at CA$10.36.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CXF.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CXF.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to CXF.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check CXF.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs DRCU.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, DRCU.TO has a market cap of 45.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while DRCU.TO trades at CA$18.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DRCU.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to DRCU.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to DRCU.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check DRCU.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs HAD.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, HAD.TO has a market cap of 44.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while HAD.TO trades at CA$9.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HAD.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HAD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to HAD.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check HAD.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs BXF.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, BXF.TO has a market cap of 42M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while BXF.TO trades at CA$10.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BXF.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to BXF.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to BXF.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check BXF.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs QSB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, QSB.TO has a market cap of 42M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while QSB.TO trades at CA$99.45.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas QSB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to QSB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to QSB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check QSB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs CMAR.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, CMAR.TO has a market cap of 38.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while CMAR.TO trades at CA$18.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CMAR.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CMAR.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to CMAR.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check CMAR.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ZQB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ZQB.TO has a market cap of 34M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ZQB.TO trades at CA$29.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZQB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZQB.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ZQB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ZQB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs XEB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, XEB.TO has a market cap of 26.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while XEB.TO trades at CA$16.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XEB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XEB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to XEB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check XEB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs RQG.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, RQG.TO has a market cap of 25.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while RQG.TO trades at CA$18.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RQG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RQG.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to RQG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check RQG.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs ESGF.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, ESGF.TO has a market cap of 25M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while ESGF.TO trades at CA$24.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ESGF.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ESGF.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to ESGF.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check ESGF.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs DCS.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, DCS.TO has a market cap of 21.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while DCS.TO trades at CA$19.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DCS.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to DCS.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to DCS.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check DCS.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs RQI.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, RQI.TO has a market cap of 18.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while RQI.TO trades at CA$19.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RQI.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RQI.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to RQI.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check RQI.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs RQH.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, RQH.TO has a market cap of 17.7M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while RQH.TO trades at CA$19.66.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RQH.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RQH.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to RQH.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check RQH.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs FGB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, FGB.TO has a market cap of 17.7M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while FGB.TO trades at CA$18.72.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FGB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to FGB.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to FGB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check FGB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs TUSB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, TUSB.TO has a market cap of 15.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while TUSB.TO trades at CA$14.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TUSB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TUSB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to TUSB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check TUSB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs RPSB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, RPSB.TO has a market cap of 10.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while RPSB.TO trades at CA$20.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RPSB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RPSB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to RPSB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check RPSB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs HTH.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, HTH.TO has a market cap of 9.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while HTH.TO trades at CA$54.56.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HTH.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HTH.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to HTH.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check HTH.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs DCC.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, DCC.TO has a market cap of 7.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while DCC.TO trades at CA$19.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DCC.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to DCC.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to DCC.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check DCC.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs HUIB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, HUIB.TO has a market cap of 5.8M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while HUIB.TO trades at CA$19.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HUIB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HUIB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to HUIB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check HUIB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs SFIX.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, SFIX.TO has a market cap of 2.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while SFIX.TO trades at CA$20.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SFIX.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to SFIX.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is less volatile compared to SFIX.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check SFIX.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs FLB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, FLB.TO has a market cap of 2.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while FLB.TO trades at CA$20.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FLB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to FLB.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to FLB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check FLB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs CORP.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, CORP.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while CORP.TO trades at CA$20.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CORP.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CORP.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to CORP.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check CORP.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs USB.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, USB.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while USB.TO trades at CA$21.65.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas USB.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to USB.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to USB.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check USB.TO's competition here
CLG.TO vs HMA.TO Comparison August 2025
CLG.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CLG.TO stands at 721.9M. In comparison, HMA.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CLG.TO is priced at CA$17.33, while HMA.TO trades at CA$10.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CLG.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HMA.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CLG.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HMA.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CLG.TO is more volatile compared to HMA.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CLG.TO.Check HMA.TO's competition here