Eat & Beyond Global Holdings Inc.
Eat & Beyond Global Holdings Inc. EATS.CN Peers
See (EATS.CN) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Asset Management - Global Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EATS.CN | CA$0.15 | +7.14% | 8.9M | -0.94 | -CA$0.16 | N/A |
| IGAF.TO | CA$15.60 | +0.39% | 3.3B | N/A | N/A | +0.85% |
| TEC.TO | CA$48.12 | +0.17% | 3.1B | 37.76 | CA$1.27 | +0.11% |
| XGD.TO | CA$31.78 | +3.22% | 1.8B | 21.21 | CA$1.50 | +0.76% |
| TGED.TO | CA$27.86 | +0.00% | 1.1B | 31.35 | CA$0.89 | +3.78% |
| DXG.TO | CA$72.83 | -0.07% | 751.2M | 32.57 | CA$2.24 | +11.25% |
| CIF.TO | CA$52.84 | -0.73% | 624.3M | 14.13 | CA$3.74 | +2.93% |
| FSF.TO | CA$33.34 | +0.18% | 580.1M | N/A | N/A | +1.23% |
| XHC.TO | CA$61.20 | -0.65% | 496.7M | 23.42 | CA$2.61 | +4.70% |
| XDG.TO | CA$27.97 | -0.04% | 483.8M | 17.51 | CA$1.60 | +3.30% |
Stock Comparison
EATS.CN vs IGAF.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, IGAF.TO has a market cap of 3.3B. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while IGAF.TO trades at CA$15.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas IGAF.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to IGAF.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to IGAF.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs TEC.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, TEC.TO has a market cap of 3.1B. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while TEC.TO trades at CA$48.12.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas TEC.TO's P/E ratio is 37.76. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to TEC.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to TEC.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs XGD.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, XGD.TO has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while XGD.TO trades at CA$31.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas XGD.TO's P/E ratio is 21.21. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to XGD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to XGD.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs TGED.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, TGED.TO has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while TGED.TO trades at CA$27.86.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas TGED.TO's P/E ratio is 31.35. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to TGED.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to TGED.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs DXG.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, DXG.TO has a market cap of 751.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while DXG.TO trades at CA$72.83.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas DXG.TO's P/E ratio is 32.57. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to DXG.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to DXG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs CIF.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, CIF.TO has a market cap of 624.3M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while CIF.TO trades at CA$52.84.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas CIF.TO's P/E ratio is 14.13. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to CIF.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to CIF.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs FSF.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, FSF.TO has a market cap of 580.1M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while FSF.TO trades at CA$33.34.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas FSF.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to FSF.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to FSF.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs XHC.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, XHC.TO has a market cap of 496.7M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while XHC.TO trades at CA$61.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas XHC.TO's P/E ratio is 23.42. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to XHC.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to XHC.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs XDG.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, XDG.TO has a market cap of 483.8M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while XDG.TO trades at CA$27.97.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas XDG.TO's P/E ratio is 17.51. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to XDG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to XDG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs TQGD.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, TQGD.TO has a market cap of 383.3M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while TQGD.TO trades at CA$21.19.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas TQGD.TO's P/E ratio is 15.05. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to TQGD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to TQGD.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs CINF.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, CINF.TO has a market cap of 374.5M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while CINF.TO trades at CA$29.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas CINF.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to CINF.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to CINF.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs 0P0001ED1S.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, 0P0001ED1S.TO has a market cap of 308.4M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while 0P0001ED1S.TO trades at CA$13.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas 0P0001ED1S.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to 0P0001ED1S.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to 0P0001ED1S.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs CWW.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, CWW.TO has a market cap of 306M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while CWW.TO trades at CA$62.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas CWW.TO's P/E ratio is 22.72. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to CWW.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to CWW.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs ZWG.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, ZWG.TO has a market cap of 261.8M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while ZWG.TO trades at CA$31.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas ZWG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to ZWG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to ZWG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs COW.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, COW.TO has a market cap of 244.7M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while COW.TO trades at CA$67.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas COW.TO's P/E ratio is 15.61. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to COW.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to COW.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs 0P0001ODDT.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, 0P0001ODDT.TO has a market cap of 230.6M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while 0P0001ODDT.TO trades at CA$23.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas 0P0001ODDT.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to 0P0001ODDT.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to 0P0001ODDT.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs CGR.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, CGR.TO has a market cap of 210.9M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while CGR.TO trades at CA$30.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas CGR.TO's P/E ratio is 27.28. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to CGR.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to CGR.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs VMO.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, VMO.TO has a market cap of 208.5M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while VMO.TO trades at CA$70.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas VMO.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to VMO.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to VMO.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs GDV.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, GDV.TO has a market cap of 177.1M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while GDV.TO trades at CA$11.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas GDV.TO's P/E ratio is 2.86. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to GDV.TO's ROE of +0.36%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to GDV.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs LIFE.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, LIFE.TO has a market cap of 172.5M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while LIFE.TO trades at CA$18.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas LIFE.TO's P/E ratio is 24.83. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to LIFE.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to LIFE.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs ZGD.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, ZGD.TO has a market cap of 150.7M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while ZGD.TO trades at CA$160.46.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas ZGD.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to ZGD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to ZGD.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs CYH.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, CYH.TO has a market cap of 149.3M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while CYH.TO trades at CA$23.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas CYH.TO's P/E ratio is 12.59. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to CYH.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to CYH.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs XGI.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, XGI.TO has a market cap of 119.9M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while XGI.TO trades at CA$60.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas XGI.TO's P/E ratio is 23.91. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to XGI.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to XGI.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs CGLO.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, CGLO.TO has a market cap of 106.7M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while CGLO.TO trades at CA$30.33.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas CGLO.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to CGLO.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to CGLO.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs PMNT.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, PMNT.TO has a market cap of 98.5M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while PMNT.TO trades at CA$18.98.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas PMNT.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to PMNT.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to PMNT.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs XMY.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, XMY.TO has a market cap of 98.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while XMY.TO trades at CA$32.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas XMY.TO's P/E ratio is 19.39. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to XMY.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to XMY.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs XDGH.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, XDGH.TO has a market cap of 94.8M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while XDGH.TO trades at CA$27.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas XDGH.TO's P/E ratio is 17.57. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to XDGH.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to XDGH.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs TGRE.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, TGRE.TO has a market cap of 82.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while TGRE.TO trades at CA$14.91.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas TGRE.TO's P/E ratio is 26.26. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to TGRE.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to TGRE.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs XCD.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, XCD.TO has a market cap of 66M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while XCD.TO trades at CA$59.36.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas XCD.TO's P/E ratio is 20.31. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to XCD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to XCD.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs LONG.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, LONG.TO has a market cap of 64.1M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while LONG.TO trades at CA$36.59.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas LONG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to LONG.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to LONG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs VVO.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, VVO.TO has a market cap of 51.7M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while VVO.TO trades at CA$39.12.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas VVO.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to VVO.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to VVO.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs ONEQ.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, ONEQ.TO has a market cap of 50.9M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while ONEQ.TO trades at CA$45.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas ONEQ.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to ONEQ.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to ONEQ.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs GIQG.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, GIQG.TO has a market cap of 46.7M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while GIQG.TO trades at CA$31.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas GIQG.TO's P/E ratio is 35.79. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to GIQG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to GIQG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs 0P0001NDFE.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, 0P0001NDFE.TO has a market cap of 46.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while 0P0001NDFE.TO trades at CA$13.81.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas 0P0001NDFE.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to 0P0001NDFE.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to 0P0001NDFE.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs ESGG.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, ESGG.TO has a market cap of 43.8M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while ESGG.TO trades at CA$52.21.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas ESGG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to ESGG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to ESGG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs TGGR.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, TGGR.TO has a market cap of 37.7M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while TGGR.TO trades at CA$28.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas TGGR.TO's P/E ratio is 25.91. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to TGGR.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to TGGR.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs DXN.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, DXN.TO has a market cap of 26.4M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while DXN.TO trades at CA$23.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas DXN.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to DXN.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to DXN.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs ZMT.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, ZMT.TO has a market cap of 23.1M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while ZMT.TO trades at CA$78.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas ZMT.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to ZMT.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to ZMT.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs VAH.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, VAH.TO has a market cap of 22.3M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while VAH.TO trades at CA$28.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas VAH.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to VAH.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to VAH.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs CGAA.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, CGAA.TO has a market cap of 21.9M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while CGAA.TO trades at CA$28.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas CGAA.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to CGAA.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to CGAA.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs 0P0001N8LS.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, 0P0001N8LS.TO has a market cap of 21.5M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while 0P0001N8LS.TO trades at CA$38.86.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas 0P0001N8LS.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to 0P0001N8LS.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to 0P0001N8LS.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs PINV.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, PINV.TO has a market cap of 21.1M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while PINV.TO trades at CA$24.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas PINV.TO's P/E ratio is 28.36. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to PINV.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to PINV.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs HGGG.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, HGGG.TO has a market cap of 20.8M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while HGGG.TO trades at CA$49.45.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas HGGG.TO's P/E ratio is 15.54. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to HGGG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to HGGG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs MIVG.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, MIVG.TO has a market cap of 19.8M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while MIVG.TO trades at CA$37.54.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas MIVG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to MIVG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to MIVG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs SOL.CN Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, SOL.CN has a market cap of 13.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while SOL.CN trades at CA$0.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas SOL.CN's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to SOL.CN's ROE of +8.78%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to SOL.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs RWU.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, RWU.TO has a market cap of 12.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while RWU.TO 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.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas RWU.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to RWU.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to RWU.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs VLQ.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, VLQ.TO has a market cap of 11.6M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while VLQ.TO trades at CA$32.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas VLQ.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to VLQ.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to VLQ.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs FLGD.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, FLGD.TO has a market cap of 10.8M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while FLGD.TO trades at CA$29.81.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas FLGD.TO's P/E ratio is 16.06. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to FLGD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to FLGD.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs RIG.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, RIG.TO has a market cap of 10.5M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while RIG.TO trades at CA$18.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas RIG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to RIG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to RIG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs HRA.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, HRA.TO has a market cap of 10.4M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while HRA.TO trades at CA$10.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas HRA.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to HRA.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to HRA.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs RLD.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, RLD.TO has a market cap of 9.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while RLD.TO trades at CA$24.92.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas RLD.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to RLD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to RLD.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs SHZ.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, SHZ.TO has a market cap of 6.8M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while SHZ.TO trades at CA$7.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas SHZ.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to SHZ.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to SHZ.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs DFD.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, DFD.TO has a market cap of 5.3M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while DFD.TO trades at CA$21.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas DFD.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to DFD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to DFD.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs HLTH.CN Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, HLTH.CN has a market cap of 3.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while HLTH.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.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas HLTH.CN's P/E ratio is -0.17. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to HLTH.CN's ROE of -140.65%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to HLTH.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs DFE.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, DFE.TO has a market cap of 2.7M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while DFE.TO trades at CA$17.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas DFE.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to DFE.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to DFE.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs RLE.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, RLE.TO has a market cap of 2.6M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while RLE.TO trades at CA$28.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas RLE.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to RLE.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to RLE.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs HGM.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, HGM.TO has a market cap of 1M. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while HGM.TO trades at CA$11.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas HGM.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to HGM.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to HGM.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs PXG.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, PXG.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while PXG.TO trades at CA$28.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas PXG.TO's P/E ratio is 11.11. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to PXG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to PXG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.
EATS.CN vs PSY.TO Comparison
EATS.CN plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EATS.CN stands at 8.9M. In comparison, PSY.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, EATS.CN is priced at CA$0.15, while PSY.TO trades at CA$30.82.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EATS.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.94, whereas PSY.TO's P/E ratio is 12.25. In terms of profitability, EATS.CN's ROE is -2.49%, compared to PSY.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EATS.CN is more volatile compared to PSY.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EATS.CN.