Constellation Software Inc.
Constellation Software Inc. CSU.TO Peers
See (CSU.TO) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Software - Application Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSU.TO | CA$4,845.77 | +0.03% | 102.7B | 100.91 | CA$48.02 | +0.12% |
| CRM.NE | CA$20.96 | +0.34% | 342.9B | 41.10 | CA$0.51 | +0.62% |
| SHOP.TO | CA$166.52 | +0.28% | 216.5B | 99.13 | CA$1.68 | N/A |
| CDAY.TO | CA$93.38 | +0.38% | 14.6B | 2334.50 | CA$0.04 | N/A |
| DSG.TO | CA$145.18 | +1.19% | 12.5B | 64.52 | CA$2.25 | N/A |
| OTEX.TO | CA$41.20 | +0.34% | 10.7B | 12.30 | CA$3.35 | +3.53% |
| KXS.TO | CA$204.30 | +0.55% | 5.8B | 434.68 | CA$0.47 | N/A |
| LSPD.TO | CA$17.91 | +0.00% | 2.5B | -3.00 | -CA$5.96 | N/A |
| MAGT.TO | CA$44.24 | +0.00% | 1.8B | 368.67 | CA$0.12 | N/A |
| ENGH.TO | CA$23.56 | -0.97% | 1.3B | 16.59 | CA$1.42 | +5.80% |
Stock Comparison
CSU.TO vs CRM.NE Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, CRM.NE has a market cap of 342.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while CRM.NE trades at CA$20.96.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas CRM.NE's P/E ratio is 41.10. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to CRM.NE's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to CRM.NE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs SHOP.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, SHOP.TO has a market cap of 216.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while SHOP.TO trades at CA$166.52.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas SHOP.TO's P/E ratio is 99.13. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to SHOP.TO's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to SHOP.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs CDAY.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, CDAY.TO has a market cap of 14.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while CDAY.TO trades at CA$93.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas CDAY.TO's P/E ratio is 2334.50. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to CDAY.TO's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to CDAY.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs DSG.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, DSG.TO has a market cap of 12.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while DSG.TO trades at CA$145.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas DSG.TO's P/E ratio is 64.52. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to DSG.TO's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to DSG.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs OTEX.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, OTEX.TO has a market cap of 10.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while OTEX.TO trades at CA$41.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas OTEX.TO's P/E ratio is 12.30. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to OTEX.TO's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to OTEX.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs KXS.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, KXS.TO has a market cap of 5.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while KXS.TO trades at CA$204.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas KXS.TO's P/E ratio is 434.68. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to KXS.TO's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to KXS.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs LSPD.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, LSPD.TO has a market cap of 2.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while LSPD.TO trades at CA$17.91.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas LSPD.TO's P/E ratio is -3.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to LSPD.TO's ROE of -0.31%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to LSPD.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs MAGT.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, MAGT.TO has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while MAGT.TO trades at CA$44.24.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas MAGT.TO's P/E ratio is 368.67. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to MAGT.TO's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to MAGT.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs ENGH.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, ENGH.TO has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while ENGH.TO trades at CA$23.56.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas ENGH.TO's P/E ratio is 16.59. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to ENGH.TO's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to ENGH.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs DCBO.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, DCBO.TO has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while DCBO.TO trades at CA$42.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas DCBO.TO's P/E ratio is 41.94. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to DCBO.TO's ROE of +0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to DCBO.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs ABST.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, ABST.TO has a market cap of 808M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while ABST.TO trades at CA$15.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas ABST.TO's P/E ratio is -23.03. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to ABST.TO's ROE of -1.65%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to ABST.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs CMG.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, CMG.TO has a market cap of 651.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while CMG.TO trades at CA$7.91.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas CMG.TO's P/E ratio is 29.22. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to CMG.TO's ROE of +0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to CMG.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs TCS.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, TCS.TO has a market cap of 546M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while TCS.TO trades at CA$36.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas TCS.TO's P/E ratio is 122.67. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to TCS.TO's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to TCS.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs BLN.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, BLN.TO has a market cap of 538.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while BLN.TO trades at CA$6.33.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas BLN.TO's P/E ratio is -70.89. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to BLN.TO's ROE of -0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to BLN.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs ABXX.NE Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, ABXX.NE has a market cap of 422.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while ABXX.NE trades at CA$12.34.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas ABXX.NE's P/E ratio is -8.23. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to ABXX.NE's ROE of -0.94%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to ABXX.NE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs REAL.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, REAL.TO has a market cap of 397.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while REAL.TO trades at CA$5.37.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas REAL.TO's P/E ratio is 178.67. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to REAL.TO's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to REAL.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs QFOR.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, QFOR.TO has a market cap of 242.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while QFOR.TO trades at CA$6.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas QFOR.TO's P/E ratio is -7.73. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to QFOR.TO's ROE of -0.59%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to QFOR.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs WNDR.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, WNDR.TO has a market cap of 232.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while WNDR.TO trades at CA$0.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas WNDR.TO's P/E ratio is -11.67. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to WNDR.TO's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to WNDR.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs SYZ.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, SYZ.TO has a market cap of 229M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while SYZ.TO trades at CA$9.79.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas SYZ.TO's P/E ratio is -195.80. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to SYZ.TO's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to SYZ.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs IMP.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, IMP.TO has a market cap of 185.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while IMP.TO trades at CA$3.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas IMP.TO's P/E ratio is 44.71. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to IMP.TO's ROE of +0.75%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to IMP.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs EINC.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, EINC.TO has a market cap of 163.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while EINC.TO trades at CA$3.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas EINC.TO's P/E ratio is -2.35. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to EINC.TO's ROE of -0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to EINC.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs THNC.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, THNC.TO has a market cap of 145.6M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while THNC.TO trades at CA$2.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas THNC.TO's P/E ratio is 71.33. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to THNC.TO's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to THNC.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs URL.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, URL.CN has a market cap of 113.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while URL.CN trades at CA$1.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas URL.CN's P/E ratio is 129.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to URL.CN's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to URL.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs XTRA.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, XTRA.TO has a market cap of 83.7M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while XTRA.TO trades at CA$0.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas XTRA.TO's P/E ratio is -7.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to XTRA.TO's ROE of -1.01%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to XTRA.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs MVP.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, MVP.TO has a market cap of 75M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while MVP.TO trades at CA$1.71.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas MVP.TO's P/E ratio is -7.43. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to MVP.TO's ROE of +1.02%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to MVP.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs TONY.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, TONY.CN has a market cap of 42.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while TONY.CN trades at CA$3.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas TONY.CN's P/E ratio is -7.56. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to TONY.CN's ROE of -3.06%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to TONY.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs AXCP.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, AXCP.CN has a market cap of 37.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while AXCP.CN trades at CA$0.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas AXCP.CN's P/E ratio is -1.56. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to AXCP.CN's ROE of -0.81%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to AXCP.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs LGIQ.NE Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, LGIQ.NE has a market cap of 35M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while LGIQ.NE trades at CA$0.47.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas LGIQ.NE's P/E ratio is -0.25. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to LGIQ.NE's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to LGIQ.NE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs TWOH.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, TWOH.CN has a market cap of 27.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while TWOH.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas TWOH.CN's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to TWOH.CN's ROE of +2.78%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to TWOH.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs BLOX.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, BLOX.CN has a market cap of 21.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while BLOX.CN trades at CA$0.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas BLOX.CN's P/E ratio is 0.02. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to BLOX.CN's ROE of -0.84%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to BLOX.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs SKUR.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, SKUR.CN has a market cap of 19M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while SKUR.CN trades at CA$0.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas SKUR.CN's P/E ratio is -11.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to SKUR.CN's ROE of -1.96%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to SKUR.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs LSPK.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, LSPK.TO has a market cap of 18.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while LSPK.TO trades at CA$0.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas LSPK.TO's P/E ratio is -0.60. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to LSPK.TO's ROE of -7.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to LSPK.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs ADCO.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, ADCO.TO has a market cap of 16.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while ADCO.TO trades at CA$0.27.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas ADCO.TO's P/E ratio is -27.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to ADCO.TO's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to ADCO.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs BNSL.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, BNSL.CN has a market cap of 15.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while BNSL.CN trades at CA$0.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas BNSL.CN's P/E ratio is -6.25. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to BNSL.CN's ROE of -1.54%. Regarding short-term risk, Volatility data is not available for a full comparison. CSU.TO has daily volatility of 0.85 and BNSL.CN has daily volatility of N/A.
CSU.TO vs HP.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, HP.CN has a market cap of 15M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while HP.CN trades at CA$0.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas HP.CN's P/E ratio is -4.50. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to HP.CN's ROE of -0.45%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to HP.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs FDGE.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, FDGE.TO has a market cap of 14.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while FDGE.TO trades at CA$0.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas FDGE.TO's P/E ratio is -0.19. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to FDGE.TO's ROE of -1.40%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to FDGE.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs IGN.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, IGN.CN has a market cap of 12.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while IGN.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas IGN.CN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to IGN.CN's ROE of +1.25%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to IGN.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs VQS.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, VQS.TO has a market cap of 11.6M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while VQS.TO trades at CA$0.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas VQS.TO's P/E ratio is -0.42. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to VQS.TO's ROE of -2.03%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to VQS.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs SPO.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, SPO.CN has a market cap of 10M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while SPO.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas SPO.CN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to SPO.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to SPO.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs CNI.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, CNI.CN has a market cap of 7.7M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while CNI.CN trades at CA$0.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas CNI.CN's P/E ratio is -1.38. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to CNI.CN's ROE of -0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to CNI.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs EGTI.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, EGTI.CN has a market cap of 7M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while EGTI.CN trades at CA$0.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas EGTI.CN's P/E ratio is -6.25. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to EGTI.CN's ROE of +13.20%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to EGTI.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs IAI.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, IAI.CN has a market cap of 5.6M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while IAI.CN trades at CA$0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas IAI.CN's P/E ratio is -4.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to IAI.CN's ROE of +0.57%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to IAI.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs BYFM.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, BYFM.CN has a market cap of 4.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while BYFM.CN trades at CA$0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas BYFM.CN's P/E ratio is -5.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to BYFM.CN's ROE of +0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to BYFM.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs ISFT.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, ISFT.CN has a market cap of 4.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while ISFT.CN trades at CA$0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas ISFT.CN's P/E ratio is -4.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to ISFT.CN's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to ISFT.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs VSBY.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, VSBY.CN has a market cap of 4.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while VSBY.CN trades at CA$0.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas VSBY.CN's P/E ratio is -0.33. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to VSBY.CN's ROE of +1.21%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to VSBY.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs MWRK.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, MWRK.CN has a market cap of 4.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while MWRK.CN trades at CA$0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas MWRK.CN's P/E ratio is -0.57. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to MWRK.CN's ROE of -3.26%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to MWRK.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs LIQD.NE Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, LIQD.NE has a market cap of 3.8M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while LIQD.NE trades at CA$0.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas LIQD.NE's P/E ratio is 7.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to LIQD.NE's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to LIQD.NE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs LUXX.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, LUXX.CN has a market cap of 3.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while LUXX.CN trades at CA$0.42.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas LUXX.CN's P/E ratio is 1.05. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to LUXX.CN's ROE of +0.31%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to LUXX.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs LQID.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, LQID.CN has a market cap of 3.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while LQID.CN trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas LQID.CN's P/E ratio is -0.29. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to LQID.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to LQID.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs GBMC.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, GBMC.CN has a market cap of 2.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while GBMC.CN trades at CA$0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas GBMC.CN's P/E ratio is -0.18. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to GBMC.CN's ROE of +3.22%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to GBMC.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs WFLD.V Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, WFLD.V has a market cap of 2.8M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while WFLD.V trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas WFLD.V's P/E ratio is -0.10. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to WFLD.V's ROE of +4.40%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to WFLD.V. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs CK.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, CK.CN has a market cap of 2.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while CK.CN trades at CA$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas CK.CN's P/E ratio is -2.50. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to CK.CN's ROE of +0.31%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to CK.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs KASH.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, KASH.CN has a market cap of 2.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while KASH.CN trades at CA$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas KASH.CN's P/E ratio is -3.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to KASH.CN's ROE of -0.87%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to KASH.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs XRA.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, XRA.CN has a market cap of 2.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while XRA.CN trades at CA$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas XRA.CN's P/E ratio is -0.25. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to XRA.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to XRA.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs GBLC.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, GBLC.CN has a market cap of 1.9M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while GBLC.CN trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas GBLC.CN's P/E ratio is -0.15. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to GBLC.CN's ROE of -1.51%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to GBLC.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs WHIP.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, WHIP.CN has a market cap of 1.7M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while WHIP.CN trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas WHIP.CN's P/E ratio is -0.04. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to WHIP.CN's ROE of +73.91%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to WHIP.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs ARWY.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, ARWY.CN has a market cap of 1.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while ARWY.CN trades at CA$0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas ARWY.CN's P/E ratio is -0.64. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to ARWY.CN's ROE of +5.35%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to ARWY.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs EMPH.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, EMPH.CN has a market cap of 1M. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while EMPH.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas EMPH.CN's P/E ratio is -0.50. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to EMPH.CN's ROE of +3.26%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to EMPH.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs PLNK.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, PLNK.CN has a market cap of 887K. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while PLNK.CN trades at CA$0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas PLNK.CN's P/E ratio is -0.50. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to PLNK.CN's ROE of -1.04%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to PLNK.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs PPK.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, PPK.CN has a market cap of 828K. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while PPK.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas PPK.CN's P/E ratio is -1.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to PPK.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to PPK.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs FDM.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, FDM.CN has a market cap of 821.1K. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while FDM.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas FDM.CN's P/E ratio is -0.33. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to FDM.CN's ROE of -1.18%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to FDM.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs PUSH.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, PUSH.CN has a market cap of 808.4K. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while PUSH.CN trades at CA$0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas PUSH.CN's P/E ratio is -0.13. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to PUSH.CN's ROE of -10.43%. Regarding short-term risk, Volatility data is not available for a full comparison. CSU.TO has daily volatility of 0.85 and PUSH.CN has daily volatility of N/A.
CSU.TO vs TTT.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, TTT.CN has a market cap of 763.5K. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while TTT.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas TTT.CN's P/E ratio is -0.50. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to TTT.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to TTT.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs SOLV.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, SOLV.CN has a market cap of 762.7K. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while SOLV.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas SOLV.CN's P/E ratio is -0.17. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to SOLV.CN's ROE of -47.47%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to SOLV.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs GEMS.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, GEMS.CN has a market cap of 669K. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while GEMS.CN trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas GEMS.CN's P/E ratio is 0.05. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to GEMS.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to GEMS.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs XIGM.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, XIGM.CN has a market cap of 650.8K. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while XIGM.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas XIGM.CN's P/E ratio is -1.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to XIGM.CN's ROE of -0.79%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to XIGM.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs DVN.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, DVN.CN has a market cap of 604.1K. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while DVN.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas DVN.CN's P/E ratio is -0.13. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to DVN.CN's ROE of +3.29%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to DVN.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs ZEU.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, ZEU.CN has a market cap of 410.4K. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while ZEU.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas ZEU.CN's P/E ratio is 0.05. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to ZEU.CN's ROE of -1.18%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to ZEU.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs COYX.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, COYX.CN has a market cap of 388.4K. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while COYX.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas COYX.CN's P/E ratio is -0.10. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to COYX.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to COYX.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs RAD.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, RAD.CN has a market cap of 278.4K. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while RAD.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas RAD.CN's P/E ratio is -1.00. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to RAD.CN's ROE of +0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to RAD.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs LNK.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, LNK.CN has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while LNK.CN trades at CA$0.12.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas LNK.CN's P/E ratio is -0.53. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to LNK.CN's ROE of +3.39%. Regarding short-term risk, Volatility data is not available for a full comparison. CSU.TO has daily volatility of 0.85 and LNK.CN has daily volatility of N/A.
CSU.TO vs LWRK.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, LWRK.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while LWRK.TO trades at CA$32.27.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas LWRK.TO's P/E ratio is 87.22. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to LWRK.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to LWRK.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs XCT.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, XCT.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while XCT.TO trades at CA$3.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas XCT.TO's P/E ratio is -55.36. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to XCT.TO's ROE of +20.20%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to XCT.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs SWIS.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, SWIS.CN has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while SWIS.CN trades at CA$0.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas SWIS.CN's P/E ratio is -3.33. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to SWIS.CN's ROE of -1.19%. Regarding short-term risk, Volatility data is not available for a full comparison. CSU.TO has daily volatility of 0.85 and SWIS.CN has daily volatility of N/A.
CSU.TO vs NXJ.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, NXJ.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while NXJ.TO trades at CA$0.54.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas NXJ.TO's P/E ratio is -13.50. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to NXJ.TO's ROE of -0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is more volatile compared to NXJ.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs TSF.CN Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, TSF.CN has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while TSF.CN trades at CA$0.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas TSF.CN's P/E ratio is -0.34. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to TSF.CN's ROE of -1.51%. Regarding short-term risk, Volatility data is not available for a full comparison. CSU.TO has daily volatility of 0.85 and TSF.CN has daily volatility of N/A.
CSU.TO vs VOYG.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, VOYG.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while VOYG.TO trades at CA$0.34.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas VOYG.TO's P/E ratio is -0.73. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to VOYG.TO's ROE of -0.55%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to VOYG.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.
CSU.TO vs PAT.TO Comparison
CSU.TO plays a significant role within the Technology sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CSU.TO stands at 102.7B. In comparison, PAT.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CSU.TO is priced at CA$4,845.77, while PAT.TO trades at CA$0.59.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CSU.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 100.91, whereas PAT.TO's P/E ratio is -5.84. In terms of profitability, CSU.TO's ROE is +0.27%, compared to PAT.TO's ROE of -1.01%. Regarding short-term risk, CSU.TO is less volatile compared to PAT.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CSU.TO.