iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF
iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF (CNYB.AS) Stock Competitors & Peer Comparison
See (CNYB.AS) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Asset Management Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNYB.AS | €5.33 | -0.02% | 1.8B | N/A | N/A | +2.07% |
| IWDA.AS | €104.24 | +0.42% | 99.7B | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| VUSA.AS | €104.72 | +0.43% | 61.7B | N/A | N/A | +1.07% |
| VWRL.AS | €132.68 | +0.41% | 36.5B | N/A | N/A | +1.55% |
| SP5C.PA | €397.30 | +0.47% | 20.3B | 27.38 | €14.51 | N/A |
| SP5H.PA | €314.55 | -0.30% | 19.9B | 27.46 | €11.45 | +1.19% |
| IUSA.AS | €55.03 | +0.46% | 16.5B | N/A | N/A | +1.03% |
| ISFA.AS | €10.30 | +1.02% | 14.9B | N/A | N/A | +3.43% |
| AMUN.PA | €64.35 | -8.27% | 13.1B | 10.10 | €6.37 | +6.60% |
| HAL.AS | €124.80 | +0.00% | 11.3B | 9.32 | €13.39 | +2.32% |
Stock Comparison
CNYB.AS vs IWDA.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, IWDA.AS has a market cap of 99.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while IWDA.AS trades at €104.24.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IWDA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to IWDA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to IWDA.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check IWDA.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs VUSA.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, VUSA.AS has a market cap of 61.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while VUSA.AS trades at €104.72.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VUSA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VUSA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to VUSA.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check VUSA.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs VWRL.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, VWRL.AS has a market cap of 36.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while VWRL.AS trades at €132.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VWRL.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VWRL.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to VWRL.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check VWRL.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs SP5C.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, SP5C.PA has a market cap of 20.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while SP5C.PA trades at €397.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SP5C.PA's P/E ratio is 27.38. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to SP5C.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to SP5C.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check SP5C.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs SP5H.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, SP5H.PA has a market cap of 19.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while SP5H.PA trades at €314.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SP5H.PA's P/E ratio is 27.46. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to SP5H.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to SP5H.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check SP5H.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs IUSA.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, IUSA.AS has a market cap of 16.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while IUSA.AS trades at €55.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IUSA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to IUSA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to IUSA.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check IUSA.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs ISFA.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, ISFA.AS has a market cap of 14.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while ISFA.AS trades at €10.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ISFA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ISFA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to ISFA.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check ISFA.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs AMUN.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, AMUN.PA has a market cap of 13.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while AMUN.PA trades at €64.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AMUN.PA's P/E ratio is 10.10. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to AMUN.PA's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to AMUN.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check AMUN.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs HAL.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, HAL.AS has a market cap of 11.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while HAL.AS trades at €124.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HAL.AS's P/E ratio is 9.32. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HAL.AS's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to HAL.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check HAL.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs IMEU.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, IMEU.AS has a market cap of 10.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while IMEU.AS trades at €34.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IMEU.AS's P/E ratio is 17.94. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to IMEU.AS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to IMEU.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check IMEU.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs CSH2.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, CSH2.PA has a market cap of 9.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while CSH2.PA trades at €107.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CSH2.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CSH2.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is more volatile compared to CSH2.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check CSH2.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs PSH.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, PSH.AS has a market cap of 9.4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while PSH.AS trades at €51.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PSH.AS's P/E ratio is 4.41. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to PSH.AS's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to PSH.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check PSH.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs WLD.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, WLD.PA has a market cap of 9.4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while WLD.PA trades at €355.71.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas WLD.PA's P/E ratio is 23.84. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to WLD.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to WLD.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check WLD.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs WLDH.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, WLDH.PA has a market cap of 9.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while WLDH.PA trades at €225.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas WLDH.PA's P/E ratio is 23.94. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to WLDH.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to WLDH.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check WLDH.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs GBLB.BR Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, GBLB.BR has a market cap of 9.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while GBLB.BR trades at €75.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GBLB.BR's P/E ratio is 316.46. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to GBLB.BR's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to GBLB.BR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check GBLB.BR's competition here
CNYB.AS vs MEUD.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, MEUD.PA has a market cap of 9.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while MEUD.PA trades at €263.51.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MEUD.PA's P/E ratio is 17.59. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to MEUD.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to MEUD.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check MEUD.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs SOF.BR Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, SOF.BR has a market cap of 9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while SOF.BR trades at €272.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SOF.BR's P/E ratio is 6.78. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to SOF.BR's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to SOF.BR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check SOF.BR's competition here
CNYB.AS vs CBUG.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, CBUG.AS has a market cap of 8.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while CBUG.AS trades at €4.63.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CBUG.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CBUG.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to CBUG.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check CBUG.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs I500.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, I500.AS has a market cap of 7.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while I500.AS trades at €10.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas I500.AS's P/E ratio is 27.78. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to I500.AS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to I500.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check I500.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs I50D.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, I50D.AS has a market cap of 7.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while I50D.AS trades at €7.17.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas I50D.AS's P/E ratio is 28.08. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to I50D.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to I50D.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check I50D.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs GOLD.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, GOLD.PA has a market cap of 7.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while GOLD.PA trades at €114.34.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GOLD.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to GOLD.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to GOLD.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check GOLD.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs LCWD.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, LCWD.PA has a market cap of 7B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while LCWD.PA trades at €19.63.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LCWD.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to LCWD.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to LCWD.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check LCWD.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs IWRD.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, IWRD.AS has a market cap of 6.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while IWRD.AS trades at €75.76.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IWRD.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to IWRD.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to IWRD.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check IWRD.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs CEUU.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, CEUU.AS has a market cap of 6.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while CEUU.AS trades at €10.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CEUU.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CEUU.AS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to CEUU.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check CEUU.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs CC4.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, CC4.PA has a market cap of 6.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while CC4.PA trades at €225.69.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CC4.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CC4.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is more volatile compared to CC4.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check CC4.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs ECRP.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, ECRP.PA has a market cap of 6.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while ECRP.PA trades at €53.64.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ECRP.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ECRP.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is more volatile compared to ECRP.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check ECRP.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs VHYL.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, VHYL.AS has a market cap of 6.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while VHYL.AS trades at €65.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VHYL.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VHYL.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to VHYL.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check VHYL.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs SJPE.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, SJPE.AS has a market cap of 6.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while SJPE.AS trades at €10.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SJPE.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to SJPE.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to SJPE.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check SJPE.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs SJPD.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, SJPD.AS has a market cap of 6.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while SJPD.AS trades at €6.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SJPD.AS's P/E ratio is 14.91. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to SJPD.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to SJPD.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check SJPD.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs 500.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, 500.PA has a market cap of 6.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while 500.PA trades at €109.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas 500.PA's P/E ratio is 27.38. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to 500.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to 500.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check 500.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs AEME.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, AEME.PA has a market cap of 6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while AEME.PA trades at €72.69.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AEME.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to AEME.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to AEME.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check AEME.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs CW8.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, CW8.PA has a market cap of 5.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while CW8.PA trades at €568.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CW8.PA's P/E ratio is 24.27. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CW8.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to CW8.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check CW8.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs IJPA.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, IJPA.AS has a market cap of 5.4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while IJPA.AS trades at €53.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IJPA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to IJPA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to IJPA.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check IJPA.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs UST.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, UST.PA has a market cap of 5.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while UST.PA trades at €82.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas UST.PA's P/E ratio is 35.15. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to UST.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to UST.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check UST.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs PHAU.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, PHAU.AS has a market cap of 5.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while PHAU.AS trades at €268.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PHAU.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to PHAU.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to PHAU.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check PHAU.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs VEUR.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, VEUR.AS has a market cap of 5.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while VEUR.AS trades at €42.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VEUR.AS's P/E ratio is 17.66. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VEUR.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to VEUR.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check VEUR.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs KBCA.BR Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, KBCA.BR has a market cap of 4.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while KBCA.BR trades at €63.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas KBCA.BR's P/E ratio is 13.30. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to KBCA.BR's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to KBCA.BR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check KBCA.BR's competition here
CNYB.AS vs S500.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, S500.PA has a market cap of 4.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while S500.PA trades at €157.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas S500.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to S500.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to S500.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check S500.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs S500H.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, S500H.PA has a market cap of 4.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while S500H.PA trades at €89.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas S500H.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to S500H.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to S500H.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check S500H.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs IEMM.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, IEMM.AS has a market cap of 4.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while IEMM.AS trades at €42.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IEMM.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to IEMM.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to IEMM.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check IEMM.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs REINA.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, REINA.AS has a market cap of 4.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while REINA.AS trades at €25.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas REINA.AS's P/E ratio is 5.81. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to REINA.AS's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to REINA.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check REINA.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs EUEA.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, EUEA.AS has a market cap of 4.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while EUEA.AS trades at €55.37.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas EUEA.AS's P/E ratio is 17.15. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to EUEA.AS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to EUEA.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check EUEA.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs USAC.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, USAC.PA has a market cap of 4.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while USAC.PA trades at €558.74.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas USAC.PA's P/E ratio is 33.01. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to USAC.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to USAC.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check USAC.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs USA.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, USA.PA has a market cap of 4.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while USA.PA trades at €515.96.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas USA.PA's P/E ratio is 32.40. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to USA.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to USA.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check USA.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs 500X.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, 500X.AS has a market cap of 4.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while 500X.AS trades at €38.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas 500X.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to 500X.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to 500X.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check 500X.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs AUEM.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, AUEM.PA has a market cap of 4.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while AUEM.PA trades at €6.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AUEM.PA's P/E ratio is 14.31. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to AUEM.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to AUEM.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check AUEM.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs SRIL.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, SRIL.AS has a market cap of 4.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while SRIL.AS trades at €11.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SRIL.AS's P/E ratio is 26.34. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to SRIL.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to SRIL.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check SRIL.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs C50U.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, C50U.PA has a market cap of 4.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while C50U.PA trades at €162.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas C50U.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to C50U.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to C50U.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check C50U.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs ALLFG.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, ALLFG.AS has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while ALLFG.AS trades at €6.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ALLFG.AS's P/E ratio is -23.55. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ALLFG.AS's ROE of -0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to ALLFG.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check ALLFG.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs CACC.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, CACC.PA has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while CACC.PA trades at €38.72.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CACC.PA's P/E ratio is 17.31. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CACC.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to CACC.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check CACC.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs CAC.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, CAC.PA has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while CAC.PA trades at €79.31.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CAC.PA's P/E ratio is 17.24. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CAC.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to CAC.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check CAC.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs WSRI.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, WSRI.PA has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while WSRI.PA trades at €103.33.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas WSRI.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to WSRI.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to WSRI.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check WSRI.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs MF.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, MF.PA has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while MF.PA trades at €93.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MF.PA's P/E ratio is -31.77. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to MF.PA's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to MF.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check MF.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs MSE.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, MSE.PA has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while MSE.PA trades at €59.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MSE.PA's P/E ratio is 16.74. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to MSE.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to MSE.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check MSE.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs AGGD.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, AGGD.AS has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while AGGD.AS trades at €5.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AGGD.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to AGGD.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is more volatile compared to AGGD.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check AGGD.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs RF.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, RF.PA has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while RF.PA trades at €52.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RF.PA's P/E ratio is -8.76. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RF.PA's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to RF.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check RF.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs GLUH.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, GLUH.AS has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while GLUH.AS trades at €4.87.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GLUH.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to GLUH.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to GLUH.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check GLUH.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs ISED.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, ISED.AS has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while ISED.AS trades at €7.34.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ISED.AS's P/E ratio is 21.60. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ISED.AS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to ISED.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check ISED.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs ROLA.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, ROLA.AS has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while ROLA.AS trades at €66.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ROLA.AS's P/E ratio is 6.58. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ROLA.AS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is more volatile compared to ROLA.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check ROLA.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs VERX.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, VERX.AS has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while VERX.AS trades at €42.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VERX.AS's P/E ratio is 17.16. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VERX.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to VERX.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check VERX.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs AEEM.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, AEEM.PA has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while AEEM.PA trades at €5.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AEEM.PA's P/E ratio is 15.48. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to AEEM.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to AEEM.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check AEEM.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs IDSE.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, IDSE.AS has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while IDSE.AS trades at €137.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IDSE.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to IDSE.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to IDSE.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check IDSE.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs C50.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, C50.PA has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while C50.PA trades at €140.58.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas C50.PA's P/E ratio is 16.68. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to C50.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to C50.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check C50.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs CD5.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, CD5.PA has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while CD5.PA trades at €86.82.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CD5.PA's P/E ratio is 16.78. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CD5.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to CD5.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check CD5.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs TKO.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, TKO.PA has a market cap of 3.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while TKO.PA trades at €20.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TKO.PA's P/E ratio is 23.66. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TKO.PA's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to TKO.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check TKO.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs EHYA.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, EHYA.AS has a market cap of 3.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while EHYA.AS trades at €5.72.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas EHYA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to EHYA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to EHYA.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check EHYA.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs EHYD.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, EHYD.AS has a market cap of 3.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while EHYD.AS trades at €4.63.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas EHYD.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to EHYD.AS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to EHYD.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check EHYD.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs ICHD.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, ICHD.AS has a market cap of 3.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while ICHD.AS trades at €5.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ICHD.AS's P/E ratio is 13.92. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ICHD.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to ICHD.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check ICHD.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs ICHN.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, ICHN.AS has a market cap of 3.4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while ICHN.AS trades at €5.91.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ICHN.AS's P/E ratio is 14.09. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ICHN.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to ICHN.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check ICHN.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs BREB.BR Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, BREB.BR has a market cap of 3.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while BREB.BR trades at €111.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BREB.BR's P/E ratio is 7.90. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to BREB.BR's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to BREB.BR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check BREB.BR's competition here
CNYB.AS vs SEMD.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, SEMD.AS has a market cap of 3.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while SEMD.AS trades at €5.88.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SEMD.AS's P/E ratio is 16.55. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to SEMD.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to SEMD.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check SEMD.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs EEUE.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, EEUE.PA has a market cap of 3.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while EEUE.PA trades at €17.12.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas EEUE.PA's P/E ratio is 18.28. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to EEUE.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to EEUE.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check EEUE.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs WESE.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, WESE.PA has a market cap of 3.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while WESE.PA trades at €72.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas WESE.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to WESE.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is more volatile compared to WESE.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check WESE.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs CB3.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, CB3.PA has a market cap of 3.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while CB3.PA trades at €220.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CB3.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CB3.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is more volatile compared to CB3.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check CB3.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs IMBE.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, IMBE.AS has a market cap of 3.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while IMBE.AS trades at €4.45.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IMBE.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to IMBE.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to IMBE.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check IMBE.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs SGLU.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, SGLU.AS has a market cap of 2.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while SGLU.AS trades at €4.97.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SGLU.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to SGLU.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to SGLU.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check SGLU.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs IGLE.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, IGLE.AS has a market cap of 2.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while IGLE.AS trades at €4.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IGLE.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to IGLE.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to IGLE.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check IGLE.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs EXCH.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, EXCH.AS has a market cap of 2.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while EXCH.AS trades at €5.93.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas EXCH.AS's P/E ratio is 16.43. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to EXCH.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to EXCH.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check EXCH.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs ESE.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, ESE.PA has a market cap of 2.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while ESE.PA trades at €27.79.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ESE.PA's P/E ratio is 27.36. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ESE.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to ESE.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check ESE.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs GEMU.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, GEMU.PA has a market cap of 2.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while GEMU.PA trades at €9.76.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GEMU.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to GEMU.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to GEMU.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check GEMU.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs TDIV.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, TDIV.AS has a market cap of 2.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while TDIV.AS trades at €43.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TDIV.AS's P/E ratio is 11.48. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TDIV.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to TDIV.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check TDIV.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs EUSRI.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, EUSRI.PA has a market cap of 2.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while EUSRI.PA trades at €84.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas EUSRI.PA's P/E ratio is 21.56. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to EUSRI.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to EUSRI.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check EUSRI.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs TNOW.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, TNOW.PA has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while TNOW.PA trades at €891.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TNOW.PA's P/E ratio is 41.97. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TNOW.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to TNOW.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check TNOW.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs ANX.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, ANX.PA has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while ANX.PA trades at €230.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ANX.PA's P/E ratio is 34.73. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ANX.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to ANX.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check ANX.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs SUOA.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, SUOA.AS has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while SUOA.AS trades at €5.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SUOA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to SUOA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to SUOA.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check SUOA.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs EPAB.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, EPAB.PA has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while EPAB.PA trades at €36.17.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas EPAB.PA's P/E ratio is 17.44. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to EPAB.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to EPAB.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check EPAB.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs BNKE.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, BNKE.PA has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while BNKE.PA trades at €259.65.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BNKE.PA's P/E ratio is 9.68. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to BNKE.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to BNKE.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check BNKE.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs TI5A.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, TI5A.AS has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while TI5A.AS trades at €112.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TI5A.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TI5A.AS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is more volatile compared to TI5A.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check TI5A.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs IUHE.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, IUHE.AS has a market cap of 2.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while IUHE.AS trades at €6.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IUHE.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to IUHE.AS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to IUHE.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check IUHE.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs ANTIN.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, ANTIN.PA has a market cap of 2.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while ANTIN.PA trades at €12.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ANTIN.PA's P/E ratio is 16.51. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ANTIN.PA's ROE of +0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to ANTIN.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check ANTIN.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs USRI.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, USRI.PA has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while USRI.PA trades at €102.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas USRI.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to USRI.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to USRI.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check USRI.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs ACWI.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, ACWI.PA has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while ACWI.PA trades at €492.34.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ACWI.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ACWI.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to ACWI.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check ACWI.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs CMUD.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, CMUD.PA has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while CMUD.PA trades at €67.67.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CMUD.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CMUD.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to CMUD.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check CMUD.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs PEUG.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, PEUG.PA has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while PEUG.PA trades at €76.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PEUG.PA's P/E ratio is 13.02. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to PEUG.PA's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to PEUG.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check PEUG.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs DHYE.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, DHYE.AS has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while DHYE.AS trades at €5.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DHYE.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to DHYE.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to DHYE.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check DHYE.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs PHAG.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, PHAG.AS has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while PHAG.AS trades at €30.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PHAG.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to PHAG.AS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to PHAG.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check PHAG.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs EGOV.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, EGOV.PA has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while EGOV.PA trades at €49.36.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas EGOV.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to EGOV.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to EGOV.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check EGOV.PA's competition here
CNYB.AS vs MUSD.AS Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, MUSD.AS has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while MUSD.AS trades at €8.73.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MUSD.AS's P/E ratio is 28.34. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to MUSD.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is more volatile compared to MUSD.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check MUSD.AS's competition here
CNYB.AS vs PABW.PA Comparison July 2025
CNYB.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CNYB.AS stands at 1.8B. In comparison, PABW.PA has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CNYB.AS is priced at €5.33, while PABW.PA trades at €79.42.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CNYB.AS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PABW.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CNYB.AS's ROE is +0.00%, compared to PABW.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CNYB.AS is less volatile compared to PABW.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CNYB.AS.Check PABW.PA's competition here