Eurocastle Investment Limited
Eurocastle Investment Limited ECT.AS Peers
See (ECT.AS) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Asset Management Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECT.AS | $9.00 | +4.65% | 9M | 25.71 | $0.35 | N/A |
| JPSR.AS | $23.52 | +1.20% | 826B | N/A | N/A | +2.03% |
| IWDA.AS | $98.89 | +0.91% | 90.6B | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| VUSA.AS | $97.86 | +0.81% | 56.1B | N/A | N/A | +1.11% |
| VWRL.AS | $126.72 | +0.94% | 33B | N/A | N/A | +1.60% |
| SP5H.PA | $290.80 | +1.22% | 18.1B | 25.79 | $11.27 | +1.29% |
| SP5C.PA | $370.06 | +0.84% | 18B | 25.50 | $14.51 | N/A |
| IUSA.AS | $51.44 | +0.80% | 15.4B | N/A | N/A | +1.10% |
| AMUN.PA | $73.60 | +1.73% | 15B | 11.55 | $6.37 | +5.57% |
| ISFA.AS | $10.31 | +0.90% | 14.5B | N/A | N/A | +3.40% |
Stock Comparison
ECT.AS vs JPSR.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, JPSR.AS has a market cap of 826B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while JPSR.AS trades at $23.52.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas JPSR.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to JPSR.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to JPSR.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs IWDA.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, IWDA.AS has a market cap of 90.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while IWDA.AS trades at $98.89.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas IWDA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to IWDA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to IWDA.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs VUSA.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, VUSA.AS has a market cap of 56.1B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while VUSA.AS trades at $97.86.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas VUSA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to VUSA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to VUSA.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs VWRL.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, VWRL.AS has a market cap of 33B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while VWRL.AS trades at $126.72.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas VWRL.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to VWRL.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to VWRL.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs SP5H.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, SP5H.PA has a market cap of 18.1B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while SP5H.PA trades at $290.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas SP5H.PA's P/E ratio is 25.79. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to SP5H.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to SP5H.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs SP5C.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, SP5C.PA has a market cap of 18B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while SP5C.PA trades at $370.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas SP5C.PA's P/E ratio is 25.50. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to SP5C.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to SP5C.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs IUSA.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, IUSA.AS has a market cap of 15.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while IUSA.AS trades at $51.44.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas IUSA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to IUSA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to IUSA.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs AMUN.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, AMUN.PA has a market cap of 15B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while AMUN.PA trades at $73.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas AMUN.PA's P/E ratio is 11.55. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to AMUN.PA's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to AMUN.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs ISFA.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, ISFA.AS has a market cap of 14.5B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while ISFA.AS trades at $10.31.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas ISFA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to ISFA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to ISFA.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs HAL.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, HAL.AS has a market cap of 10.7B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while HAL.AS trades at $119.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas HAL.AS's P/E ratio is 8.89. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to HAL.AS's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to HAL.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs PSH.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, PSH.AS has a market cap of 9.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while PSH.AS trades at $51.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas PSH.AS's P/E ratio is 4.41. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to PSH.AS's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is less volatile compared to PSH.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs CSH2.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, CSH2.PA has a market cap of 9.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while CSH2.PA trades at $106.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas CSH2.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to CSH2.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to CSH2.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs MEUD.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, MEUD.PA has a market cap of 9.1B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while MEUD.PA trades at $263.44.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas MEUD.PA's P/E ratio is 17.58. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to MEUD.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to MEUD.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs WLDH.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, WLDH.PA has a market cap of 9.1B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while WLDH.PA trades at $211.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas WLDH.PA's P/E ratio is 22.58. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to WLDH.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to WLDH.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs IMEU.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, IMEU.AS has a market cap of 9B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while IMEU.AS trades at $34.45.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas IMEU.AS's P/E ratio is 17.79. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to IMEU.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to IMEU.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs WLD.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, WLD.PA has a market cap of 9B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while WLD.PA trades at $337.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas WLD.PA's P/E ratio is 22.61. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to WLD.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to WLD.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs GBLB.BR Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, GBLB.BR has a market cap of 8.7B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while GBLB.BR trades at $72.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas GBLB.BR's P/E ratio is 300.21. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to GBLB.BR's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to GBLB.BR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs SOF.BR Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, SOF.BR has a market cap of 8.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while SOF.BR trades at $250.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas SOF.BR's P/E ratio is 6.25. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to SOF.BR's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to SOF.BR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs GOLD.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, GOLD.PA has a market cap of 7.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while GOLD.PA trades at $116.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas GOLD.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to GOLD.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to GOLD.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs I500.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, I500.AS has a market cap of 7.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while I500.AS trades at $9.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas I500.AS's P/E ratio is 25.53. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to I500.AS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to I500.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs I50D.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, I50D.AS has a market cap of 7.1B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while I50D.AS trades at $6.59.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas I50D.AS's P/E ratio is 25.80. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to I50D.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to I50D.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs LCWD.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, LCWD.PA has a market cap of 7B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while LCWD.PA trades at $19.63.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas LCWD.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to LCWD.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to LCWD.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs IWRD.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, IWRD.AS has a market cap of 6.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while IWRD.AS trades at $72.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas IWRD.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to IWRD.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to IWRD.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs CC4.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, CC4.PA has a market cap of 6.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while CC4.PA trades at $223.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas CC4.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to CC4.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to CC4.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs ECRP.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, ECRP.PA has a market cap of 6.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while ECRP.PA trades at $53.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas ECRP.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to ECRP.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to ECRP.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs VHYL.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, VHYL.AS has a market cap of 6.1B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while VHYL.AS trades at $64.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas VHYL.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to VHYL.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to VHYL.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs 500.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, 500.PA has a market cap of 5.7B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while 500.PA trades at $101.83.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas 500.PA's P/E ratio is 25.51. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to 500.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to 500.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs AEME.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, AEME.PA has a market cap of 5.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while AEME.PA trades at $68.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas AEME.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to AEME.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to AEME.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs CW8.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, CW8.PA has a market cap of 5.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while CW8.PA trades at $540.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas CW8.PA's P/E ratio is 22.60. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to CW8.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to CW8.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs PHAU.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, PHAU.AS has a market cap of 5.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while PHAU.AS trades at $273.36.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas PHAU.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to PHAU.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to PHAU.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs IJPA.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, IJPA.AS has a market cap of 5.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while IJPA.AS trades at $52.96.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas IJPA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to IJPA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to IJPA.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs KBCA.BR Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, KBCA.BR has a market cap of 4.9B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while KBCA.BR trades at $63.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas KBCA.BR's P/E ratio is 13.30. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to KBCA.BR's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to KBCA.BR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs VEUR.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, VEUR.AS has a market cap of 4.8B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while VEUR.AS trades at $43.31.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas VEUR.AS's P/E ratio is 17.73. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to VEUR.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to VEUR.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs S500H.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, S500H.PA has a market cap of 4.7B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while S500H.PA trades at $82.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas S500H.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to S500H.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to S500H.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs S500.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, S500.PA has a market cap of 4.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while S500.PA trades at $145.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas S500.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to S500.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to S500.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs UST.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, UST.PA has a market cap of 4.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while UST.PA trades at $75.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas UST.PA's P/E ratio is 32.34. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to UST.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to UST.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs EUEA.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, EUEA.AS has a market cap of 4.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while EUEA.AS trades at $55.42.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas EUEA.AS's P/E ratio is 17.01. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to EUEA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to EUEA.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs REINA.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, REINA.AS has a market cap of 4.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while REINA.AS trades at $24.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas REINA.AS's P/E ratio is 4.27. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to REINA.AS's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to REINA.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs IEMM.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, IEMM.AS has a market cap of 4.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while IEMM.AS trades at $40.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas IEMM.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to IEMM.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to IEMM.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs RF.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, RF.PA has a market cap of 4.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while RF.PA trades at $61.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas RF.PA's P/E ratio is -71.63. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to RF.PA's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to RF.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs USA.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, USA.PA has a market cap of 4.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while USA.PA trades at $482.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas USA.PA's P/E ratio is 30.27. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to USA.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to USA.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs USAC.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, USAC.PA has a market cap of 4.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while USAC.PA trades at $522.86.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas USAC.PA's P/E ratio is 30.89. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to USAC.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to USAC.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs 500X.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, 500X.AS has a market cap of 4.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while 500X.AS trades at $36.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas 500X.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to 500X.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to 500X.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs C50U.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, C50U.PA has a market cap of 4.1B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while C50U.PA trades at $159.92.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas C50U.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to C50U.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to C50U.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs ICHN.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, ICHN.AS has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while ICHN.AS trades at $5.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas ICHN.AS's P/E ratio is 12.89. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to ICHN.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to ICHN.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs ICHD.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, ICHD.AS has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while ICHD.AS trades at $4.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas ICHD.AS's P/E ratio is 12.90. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to ICHD.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to ICHD.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs CACC.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, CACC.PA has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while CACC.PA trades at $38.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas CACC.PA's P/E ratio is 17.17. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to CACC.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to CACC.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs CAC.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, CAC.PA has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while CAC.PA trades at $78.67.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas CAC.PA's P/E ratio is 17.10. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to CAC.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to CAC.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs WSRI.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, WSRI.PA has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while WSRI.PA trades at $103.33.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas WSRI.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to WSRI.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to WSRI.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs MSE.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, MSE.PA has a market cap of 3.8B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while MSE.PA trades at $59.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas MSE.PA's P/E ratio is 16.75. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to MSE.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to MSE.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs AUEM.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, AUEM.PA has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while AUEM.PA trades at $5.94.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas AUEM.PA's P/E ratio is 13.32. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to AUEM.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to AUEM.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs MF.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, MF.PA has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while MF.PA trades at $85.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas MF.PA's P/E ratio is -29.13. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to MF.PA's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to MF.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs C50.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, C50.PA has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while C50.PA trades at $140.62.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas C50.PA's P/E ratio is 16.69. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to C50.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to C50.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs CD5.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, CD5.PA has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while CD5.PA trades at $86.83.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas CD5.PA's P/E ratio is 16.68. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to CD5.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to CD5.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs ROLA.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, ROLA.AS has a market cap of 3.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while ROLA.AS trades at $62.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas ROLA.AS's P/E ratio is 6.25. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to ROLA.AS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to ROLA.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs VERX.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, VERX.AS has a market cap of 3.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while VERX.AS trades at $43.69.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas VERX.AS's P/E ratio is 17.56. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to VERX.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to VERX.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs BREB.BR Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, BREB.BR has a market cap of 3.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while BREB.BR trades at $115.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas BREB.BR's P/E ratio is 8.18. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to BREB.BR's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to BREB.BR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs TKO.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, TKO.PA has a market cap of 3.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while TKO.PA trades at $19.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas TKO.PA's P/E ratio is 21.16. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to TKO.PA's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is less volatile compared to TKO.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs ALLFG.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, ALLFG.AS has a market cap of 3.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while ALLFG.AS trades at $5.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas ALLFG.AS's P/E ratio is -19.11. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to ALLFG.AS's ROE of -0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to ALLFG.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs AEEM.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, AEEM.PA has a market cap of 3.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while AEEM.PA trades at $5.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas AEEM.PA's P/E ratio is 14.62. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to AEEM.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to AEEM.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs WESE.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, WESE.PA has a market cap of 3.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while WESE.PA trades at $69.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas WESE.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to WESE.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to WESE.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs CB3.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, CB3.PA has a market cap of 3.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while CB3.PA trades at $220.47.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas CB3.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to CB3.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to CB3.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs EEUE.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, EEUE.PA has a market cap of 3.1B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while EEUE.PA trades at $17.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas EEUE.PA's P/E ratio is 18.38. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to EEUE.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to EEUE.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs SEMD.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, SEMD.AS has a market cap of 2.9B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while SEMD.AS trades at $5.51.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas SEMD.AS's P/E ratio is 15.50. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to SEMD.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to SEMD.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs EHYA.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, EHYA.AS has a market cap of 2.7B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while EHYA.AS trades at $5.62.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas EHYA.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to EHYA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to EHYA.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs EUSRI.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, EUSRI.PA has a market cap of 2.7B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while EUSRI.PA trades at $87.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas EUSRI.PA's P/E ratio is 22.46. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to EUSRI.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to EUSRI.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs ESE.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, ESE.PA has a market cap of 2.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while ESE.PA trades at $25.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas ESE.PA's P/E ratio is 25.51. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to ESE.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to ESE.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs GEMU.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, GEMU.PA has a market cap of 2.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while GEMU.PA trades at $9.74.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas GEMU.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to GEMU.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to GEMU.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs EPAB.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, EPAB.PA has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while EPAB.PA trades at $36.21.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas EPAB.PA's P/E ratio is 17.46. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to EPAB.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to EPAB.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs TDIV.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, TDIV.AS has a market cap of 2.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while TDIV.AS trades at $43.52.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas TDIV.AS's P/E ratio is 11.49. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to TDIV.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to TDIV.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs EXCH.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, EXCH.AS has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while EXCH.AS trades at $5.58.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas EXCH.AS's P/E ratio is 15.45. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to EXCH.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to EXCH.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs TNOW.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, TNOW.PA has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while TNOW.PA trades at $789.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas TNOW.PA's P/E ratio is 37.18. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to TNOW.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to TNOW.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs USRI.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, USRI.PA has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while USRI.PA trades at $102.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas USRI.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to USRI.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to USRI.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs PABW.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, PABW.PA has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while PABW.PA trades at $75.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas PABW.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to PABW.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to PABW.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs ANX.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, ANX.PA has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while ANX.PA trades at $212.45.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas ANX.PA's P/E ratio is 32.31. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to ANX.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to ANX.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs CMUD.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, CMUD.PA has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while CMUD.PA trades at $67.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas CMUD.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to CMUD.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to CMUD.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs ANTIN.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, ANTIN.PA has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while ANTIN.PA trades at $10.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas ANTIN.PA's P/E ratio is 16.43. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to ANTIN.PA's ROE of +0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is less volatile compared to ANTIN.PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs PEUG.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, PEUG.PA has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while PEUG.PA trades at $75.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas PEUG.PA's P/E ratio is 12.90. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to PEUG.PA's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to PEUG.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs BNKE.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, BNKE.PA has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while BNKE.PA trades at $242.46.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas BNKE.PA's P/E ratio is 9.40. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to BNKE.PA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to BNKE.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs ACWI.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, ACWI.PA has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while ACWI.PA trades at $466.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas ACWI.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to ACWI.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to ACWI.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs EGOV.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, EGOV.PA has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while EGOV.PA trades at $49.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas EGOV.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to EGOV.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to EGOV.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs PHAG.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, PHAG.AS has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while PHAG.AS trades at $26.82.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas PHAG.AS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to PHAG.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to PHAG.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs MUSD.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, MUSD.AS has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while MUSD.AS trades at $7.98.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas MUSD.AS's P/E ratio is 26.04. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to MUSD.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to MUSD.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs GIMB.BR Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, GIMB.BR has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while GIMB.BR trades at $45.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas GIMB.BR's P/E ratio is 6.52. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to GIMB.BR's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to GIMB.BR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs WAT.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, WAT.PA has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while WAT.PA trades at $68.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas WAT.PA's P/E ratio is 28.48. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to WAT.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to WAT.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs EMPA.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, EMPA.AS has a market cap of 1.5B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while EMPA.AS trades at $6.37.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas EMPA.AS's P/E ratio is 17.35. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to EMPA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to EMPA.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs MPAB.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, MPAB.AS has a market cap of 1.5B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while MPAB.AS trades at $5.87.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas MPAB.AS's P/E ratio is 17.28. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to MPAB.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to MPAB.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs EGRI.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, EGRI.PA has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while EGRI.PA trades at $45.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas EGRI.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to EGRI.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to EGRI.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs AASI.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, AASI.PA has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while AASI.PA trades at $38.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas AASI.PA's P/E ratio is 15.18. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to AASI.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to AASI.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs CG1.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, CG1.PA has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while CG1.PA trades at $426.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas CG1.PA's P/E ratio is 18.41. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to CG1.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to CG1.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs INR.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, INR.PA has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while INR.PA trades at $29.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas INR.PA's P/E ratio is 24.67. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to INR.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to INR.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs LWCR.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, LWCR.PA has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while LWCR.PA trades at $494.33.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas LWCR.PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to LWCR.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to LWCR.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs BNK.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, BNK.PA has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while BNK.PA trades at $46.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas BNK.PA's P/E ratio is 9.73. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to BNK.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to BNK.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs EXA1.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, EXA1.AS has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while EXA1.AS trades at $12.83.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas EXA1.AS's P/E ratio is 9.40. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to EXA1.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to EXA1.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs WQDA.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, WQDA.AS has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while WQDA.AS trades at $9.17.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas WQDA.AS's P/E ratio is 17.90. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to WQDA.AS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to WQDA.AS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs DAX.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, DAX.PA has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while DAX.PA trades at $219.65.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas DAX.PA's P/E ratio is 18.42. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to DAX.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to DAX.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs ESGE.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, ESGE.PA has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while ESGE.PA trades at $35.27.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas ESGE.PA's P/E ratio is 19.01. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to ESGE.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to ESGE.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs ESGH.PA Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, ESGH.PA has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while ESGH.PA trades at $25.64.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas ESGH.PA's P/E ratio is 18.90. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to ESGH.PA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is more volatile compared to ESGH.PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.
ECT.AS vs TFG.AS Comparison
ECT.AS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ECT.AS stands at 9M. In comparison, TFG.AS has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ECT.AS is priced at $9.00, while TFG.AS trades at $14.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ECT.AS currently has a P/E ratio of 25.71, whereas TFG.AS's P/E ratio is 3.64. In terms of profitability, ECT.AS's ROE is -0.01%, compared to TFG.AS's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, ECT.AS is less volatile compared to TFG.AS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ECT.AS.