EIDP, Inc.
EIDP, Inc. (CTA-PA) Stock Competitors & Peer Comparison
See (CTA-PA) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Agricultural Inputs Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTA-PA | $54.35 | +0.00% | 36.7B | N/A | N/A | +6.44% |
| CTA-PB | $68.38 | +0.00% | 59.6B | N/A | N/A | +0.91% |
| CTVA | $77.02 | +0.00% | 51.3B | 43.62 | $1.75 | +0.91% |
| NTR | $71.78 | +0.00% | 34.7B | 19.20 | $3.71 | +3.08% |
| CF | $99.46 | +0.00% | 15.7B | 11.76 | $8.27 | +2.04% |
| MOS | $30.16 | +0.00% | 9.3B | 7.63 | $3.86 | +2.96% |
| ICL | $5.39 | +0.00% | 7B | 18.71 | $0.29 | +3.21% |
| SMG | $69.81 | +0.00% | 4.1B | 25.09 | $2.79 | +3.77% |
| FMC | $14.86 | +0.00% | 1.8B | -0.83 | -$17.59 | +12.49% |
| UAN | $107.49 | +0.00% | 1.1B | 8.38 | $12.04 | +11.66% |
Stock Comparison
CTA-PA vs CTA-PB Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, CTA-PB has a market cap of 59.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while CTA-PB trades at $68.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CTA-PB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to CTA-PB's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to CTA-PB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check CTA-PB's competition here
CTA-PA vs CTVA Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, CTVA has a market cap of 51.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while CTVA trades at $77.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CTVA's P/E ratio is 43.62. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to CTVA's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to CTVA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check CTVA's competition here
CTA-PA vs NTR Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, NTR has a market cap of 34.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while NTR trades at $71.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NTR's P/E ratio is 19.20. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to NTR's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to NTR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check NTR's competition here
CTA-PA vs CF Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, CF has a market cap of 15.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while CF trades at $99.46.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CF's P/E ratio is 11.76. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to CF's ROE of +0.26%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to CF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check CF's competition here
CTA-PA vs MOS Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, MOS has a market cap of 9.3B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while MOS trades at $30.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MOS's P/E ratio is 7.63. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to MOS's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to MOS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check MOS's competition here
CTA-PA vs ICL Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, ICL has a market cap of 7B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while ICL trades at $5.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ICL's P/E ratio is 18.71. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to ICL's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to ICL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check ICL's competition here
CTA-PA vs SMG Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, SMG has a market cap of 4.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while SMG trades at $69.81.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SMG's P/E ratio is 25.09. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to SMG's ROE of -0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to SMG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check SMG's competition here
CTA-PA vs FMC Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, FMC has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while FMC trades at $14.86.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FMC's P/E ratio is -0.83. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to FMC's ROE of -0.61%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to FMC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check FMC's competition here
CTA-PA vs UAN Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, UAN has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while UAN trades at $107.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas UAN's P/E ratio is 8.38. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to UAN's ROE of +0.30%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to UAN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check UAN's competition here
CTA-PA vs PURR Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, PURR has a market cap of 531.8M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while PURR trades at $4.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PURR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to PURR's ROE of -0.52%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to PURR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check PURR's competition here
CTA-PA vs IPI Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, IPI has a market cap of 450.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while IPI trades at $33.54.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IPI's P/E ratio is -2.21. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to IPI's ROE of -0.41%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to IPI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check IPI's competition here
CTA-PA vs AVD Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, AVD has a market cap of 151.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while AVD trades at $5.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AVD's P/E ratio is -1.34. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to AVD's ROE of -0.49%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to AVD. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check AVD's competition here
CTA-PA vs BHST Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, BHST has a market cap of 82M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while BHST trades at $4.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BHST's P/E ratio is -6.93. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to BHST's ROE of -11.99%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to BHST. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check BHST's competition here
CTA-PA vs MULG Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, MULG has a market cap of 49.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while MULG trades at $2.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MULG's P/E ratio is 18.21. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to MULG's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA and MULG have similar daily volatility (0.00).Check MULG's competition here
CTA-PA vs BHIL-WT Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, BHIL-WT has a market cap of 49M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while BHIL-WT trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BHIL-WT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to BHIL-WT's ROE of -0.82%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to BHIL-WT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check BHIL-WT's competition here
CTA-PA vs LVRO Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, LVRO has a market cap of 46.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while LVRO trades at $0.44.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LVRO's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to LVRO's ROE of -1.11%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to LVRO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check LVRO's competition here
CTA-PA vs BIOX Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, BIOX has a market cap of 37.7M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while BIOX trades at $0.61.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BIOX's P/E ratio is -0.67. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to BIOX's ROE of -0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to BIOX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check BIOX's competition here
CTA-PA vs CGA Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, CGA has a market cap of 29.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while CGA trades at $1.98.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CGA's P/E ratio is -0.98. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to CGA's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA and CGA have similar daily volatility (0.00).Check CGA's competition here
CTA-PA vs AGRZ Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, AGRZ has a market cap of 8.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while AGRZ trades at $0.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AGRZ's P/E ratio is 4.33. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to AGRZ's ROE of +0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to AGRZ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check AGRZ's competition here
CTA-PA vs SEED Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, SEED has a market cap of 8.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while SEED trades at $1.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SEED's P/E ratio is -1.05. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to SEED's ROE of +1.48%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to SEED. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check SEED's competition here
CTA-PA vs SVFD Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, SVFD has a market cap of 4.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while SVFD trades at $1.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SVFD's P/E ratio is 0.07. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to SVFD's ROE of -366.31%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to SVFD. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check SVFD's competition here
CTA-PA vs FMTO Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, FMTO has a market cap of 3.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while FMTO trades at $3.61.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FMTO's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to FMTO's ROE of -35.53%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to FMTO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check FMTO's competition here
CTA-PA vs RKDA Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, RKDA has a market cap of 2.6M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while RKDA trades at $1.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RKDA's P/E ratio is -0.51. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to RKDA's ROE of -0.81%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to RKDA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check RKDA's competition here
CTA-PA vs BHIL Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, BHIL has a market cap of 1.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while BHIL trades at $0.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BHIL's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to BHIL's ROE of -0.82%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA and BHIL have similar daily volatility (0.00).Check BHIL's competition here
CTA-PA vs NITO Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, NITO has a market cap of 886.3K. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while NITO trades at $0.89.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NITO's P/E ratio is -0.07. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to NITO's ROE of -1.14%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to NITO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check NITO's competition here
CTA-PA vs YTEN Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, YTEN has a market cap of 345.5K. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while YTEN trades at $0.34.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas YTEN's P/E ratio is -0.02. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to YTEN's ROE of -15.08%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to YTEN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check YTEN's competition here
CTA-PA vs MBII Comparison February 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 36.7B. In comparison, MBII has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $54.35, while MBII trades at $0.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MBII's P/E ratio is -6.82. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.04%, compared to MBII's ROE of -0.54%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to MBII. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check MBII's competition here