Emergence Global Enterprises Inc.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NSRGY has a market cap of 273.40B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NSRGY trades at $106.27.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NSRGY's P/E ratio is 21.82. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NSRGY's ROE of +0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NSRGY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NSRGF has a market cap of 272.25B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NSRGF trades at $105.90.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NSRGF's P/E ratio is 20.89. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NSRGF's ROE of +0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NSRGF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GPDNF has a market cap of 55.69B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GPDNF trades at $86.45.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GPDNF's P/E ratio is 24.42. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GPDNF's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GPDNF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, DANOY has a market cap of 54.80B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while DANOY trades at $17.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas DANOY's P/E ratio is 23.96. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to DANOY's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to DANOY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TUFBY has a market cap of 49.06B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TUFBY trades at $11.53.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TUFBY's P/E ratio is 16.47. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TUFBY's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TUFBY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, KHC has a market cap of 33.84B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while KHC trades at $28.59.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas KHC's P/E ratio is 13.05. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to KHC's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to KHC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GIS has a market cap of 30.15B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GIS trades at $55.06.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GIS's P/E ratio is 12.10. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GIS's ROE of +0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GIS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ASBFF has a market cap of 20.91B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ASBFF trades at $29.04.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ASBFF's P/E ratio is 12.31. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ASBFF's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ASBFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AJINY has a market cap of 20.67B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AJINY trades at $20.97.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AJINY's P/E ratio is 32.76. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AJINY's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AJINY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AJINF has a market cap of 20.42B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AJINF trades at $20.72.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AJINF's P/E ratio is 32.38. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AJINF's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AJINF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MKC-V has a market cap of 20.26B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MKC-V trades at $75.40.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MKC-V's P/E ratio is 26.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MKC-V's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MKC-V. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MKC has a market cap of 20.19B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MKC trades at $75.30.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MKC's P/E ratio is 25.97. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MKC's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MKC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ASBFY has a market cap of 20.08B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ASBFY trades at $27.89.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ASBFY's P/E ratio is 11.82. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ASBFY's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ASBFY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, KRYAY has a market cap of 18.00B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while KRYAY trades at $109.14.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas KRYAY's P/E ratio is 24.80. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to KRYAY's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to KRYAY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, KRYAF has a market cap of 17.48B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while KRYAF trades at $106.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas KRYAF's P/E ratio is 24.09. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to KRYAF's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to KRYAF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, JBSAY has a market cap of 16.43B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while JBSAY trades at $14.81.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas JBSAY's P/E ratio is 9.26. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to JBSAY's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to JBSAY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HRL has a market cap of 16.07B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HRL trades at $29.23.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HRL's P/E ratio is 21.18. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HRL's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HRL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GRBMF has a market cap of 13.26B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GRBMF trades at $2.99.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GRBMF's P/E ratio is 21.36. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GRBMF's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GRBMF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BMBOY has a market cap of 12.43B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BMBOY trades at $11.51.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BMBOY's P/E ratio is 20.55. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BMBOY's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BMBOY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SJM has a market cap of 12.22B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SJM trades at $114.83.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SJM's P/E ratio is -47.65. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SJM's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SJM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, JDEPF has a market cap of 11.61B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while JDEPF trades at $23.79.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas JDEPF's P/E ratio is 18.58. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to JDEPF's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to JDEPF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, WHGRF has a market cap of 11.60B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while WHGRF trades at $0.90.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas WHGRF's P/E ratio is 6.95. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to WHGRF's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to WHGRF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ORKLF has a market cap of 11.58B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ORKLF trades at $11.59.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ORKLF's P/E ratio is 19.99. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ORKLF's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ORKLF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, WHGLY has a market cap of 11.53B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while WHGLY trades at $17.97.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas WHGLY's P/E ratio is 7.16. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to WHGLY's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to WHGLY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ORKLY has a market cap of 11.33B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ORKLY trades at $11.35.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ORKLY's P/E ratio is 19.56. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ORKLY's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ORKLY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CAG has a market cap of 11.22B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CAG trades at $23.51.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CAG's P/E ratio is 34.57. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CAG's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CAG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PPC has a market cap of 11.10B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PPC trades at $46.78.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PPC's P/E ratio is 9.21. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PPC's ROE of +0.32%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PPC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, KIKOY has a market cap of 10.62B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while KIKOY trades at $22.54.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas KIKOY's P/E ratio is 24.77. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to KIKOY's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to KIKOY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CPB has a market cap of 10.61B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CPB trades at $35.58.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CPB's P/E ratio is 20.57. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CPB's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CPB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TYCMY has a market cap of 10.33B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TYCMY trades at $36.65.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TYCMY's P/E ratio is 20.14. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TYCMY's ROE of +0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TYCMY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BRBR has a market cap of 10.06B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BRBR trades at $78.39.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BRBR's P/E ratio is 36.98. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BRBR's ROE of -1.33%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BRBR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CIADY has a market cap of 9.95B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CIADY trades at $25.44.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CIADY's P/E ratio is 636.06. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CIADY's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CIADY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CIADF has a market cap of 9.72B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CIADF trades at $2.50.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CIADF's P/E ratio is 16.67. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CIADF's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CIADF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, KIKOF has a market cap of 9.23B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while KIKOF trades at $9.79.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas KIKOF's P/E ratio is 21.76. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to KIKOF's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to KIKOF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TCYMF has a market cap of 9.07B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TCYMF trades at $1.61.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TCYMF's P/E ratio is 17.89. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TCYMF's ROE of +0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TCYMF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TTAZF has a market cap of 8.77B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TTAZF trades at $7.76.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TTAZF's P/E ratio is 77.60. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TTAZF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TTAZF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, INGR has a market cap of 8.59B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while INGR trades at $133.67.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas INGR's P/E ratio is 13.77. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to INGR's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to INGR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PIFFY has a market cap of 8.45B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PIFFY trades at $14.50.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PIFFY's P/E ratio is 19.86. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PIFFY's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PIFFY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, WWNTF has a market cap of 8.03B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while WWNTF trades at $0.68.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas WWNTF's P/E ratio is 13.60. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to WWNTF's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to WWNTF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SAPIF has a market cap of 7.86B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SAPIF trades at $18.79.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SAPIF's P/E ratio is -69.59. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SAPIF's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SAPIF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CFEIY has a market cap of 7.34B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CFEIY trades at $8.10.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CFEIY's P/E ratio is 15.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CFEIY's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CFEIY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ARHUF has a market cap of 7.28B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ARHUF trades at $28.05.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ARHUF's P/E ratio is 22.26. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ARHUF's ROE of +0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ARHUF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, LW has a market cap of 7.24B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while LW trades at $51.28.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas LW's P/E ratio is 20.11. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to LW's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to LW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GCHOY has a market cap of 7.11B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GCHOY trades at $15.53.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GCHOY's P/E ratio is 39.82. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GCHOY's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GCHOY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SDPNF has a market cap of 6.92B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SDPNF trades at $1.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SDPNF's P/E ratio is 14.29. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SDPNF's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SDPNF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MEJHY has a market cap of 6.60B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MEJHY trades at $12.19.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MEJHY's P/E ratio is 19.35. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MEJHY's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MEJHY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GPAGF has a market cap of 6.59B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GPAGF trades at $17.79.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GPAGF's P/E ratio is 11.78. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GPAGF's ROE of +0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GPAGF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, DLLFF has a market cap of 6.51B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while DLLFF trades at $0.42.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas DLLFF's P/E ratio is 14.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to DLLFF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to DLLFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TSUKY has a market cap of 6.48B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TSUKY trades at $65.03.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TSUKY's P/E ratio is 13.81. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TSUKY's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TSUKY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CHFLF has a market cap of 6.47B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CHFLF trades at $0.71.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CHFLF's P/E ratio is 14.28. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CHFLF's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CHFLF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, POST has a market cap of 6.42B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while POST trades at $113.58.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas POST's P/E ratio is 18.80. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to POST's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to POST. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, LOTBY has a market cap of 6.20B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while LOTBY trades at $76.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas LOTBY's P/E ratio is 35.68. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to LOTBY's ROE of +0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to LOTBY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TSUKF has a market cap of 6.19B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TSUKF trades at $62.12.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TSUKF's P/E ratio is 15.97. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TSUKF's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TSUKF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BRFS has a market cap of 6.05B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BRFS trades at $3.73.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BRFS's P/E ratio is 10.97. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BRFS's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BRFS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NFPDF has a market cap of 5.94B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NFPDF trades at $20.05.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NFPDF's P/E ratio is 17.75. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NFPDF's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NFPDF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MEJHF has a market cap of 5.49B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MEJHF trades at $20.25.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MEJHF's P/E ratio is 17.02. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MEJHF's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MEJHF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, EMLZF has a market cap of 5.30B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while EMLZF trades at $990.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas EMLZF's P/E ratio is 19.87. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to EMLZF's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to EMLZF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, DAR has a market cap of 5.14B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while DAR trades at $32.48.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas DAR's P/E ratio is 18.77. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to DAR's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to DAR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SMPFF has a market cap of 4.74B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SMPFF trades at $0.80.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SMPFF's P/E ratio is 13.38. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SMPFF's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SMPFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, IOIOF has a market cap of 4.71B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while IOIOF trades at $0.76.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas IOIOF's P/E ratio is 12.64. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to IOIOF's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to IOIOF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NSLYF has a market cap of 4.69B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NSLYF trades at $20.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NSLYF's P/E ratio is 50.05. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NSLYF's ROE of +0.66%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NSLYF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, LANC has a market cap of 4.45B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while LANC trades at $161.45.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas LANC's P/E ratio is 28.37. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to LANC's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to LANC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PIFMY has a market cap of 4.44B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PIFMY trades at $25.28.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PIFMY's P/E ratio is 8.26. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PIFMY's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PIFMY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TWNK has a market cap of 4.42B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TWNK trades at $33.30.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TWNK's P/E ratio is 26.64. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TWNK's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TWNK. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TWNKW has a market cap of 4.42B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TWNKW trades at $3.20.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TWNKW's P/E ratio is 5.15. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TWNKW's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TWNKW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PIFMF has a market cap of 4.13B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PIFMF trades at $0.47.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PIFMF's P/E ratio is 7.83. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PIFMF's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PIFMF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ACOPF has a market cap of 3.87B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ACOPF trades at $5.35.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ACOPF's P/E ratio is 38.21. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ACOPF's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ACOPF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FRPT has a market cap of 3.85B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FRPT trades at $79.09.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FRPT's P/E ratio is 85.04. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FRPT's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FRPT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SMPL has a market cap of 3.73B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SMPL trades at $36.91.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SMPL's P/E ratio is 25.63. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SMPL's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SMPL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FLO has a market cap of 3.68B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FLO trades at $17.45.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FLO's P/E ratio is 14.91. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FLO's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FLO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NIPMY has a market cap of 3.51B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NIPMY trades at $17.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NIPMY's P/E ratio is 18.68. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NIPMY's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NIPMY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CRWKF has a market cap of 3.44B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CRWKF trades at $63.99.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CRWKF's P/E ratio is 23.79. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CRWKF's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CRWKF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TATYY has a market cap of 3.35B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TATYY trades at $30.50.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TATYY's P/E ratio is 14.88. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TATYY's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TATYY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MRRTY has a market cap of 3.33B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MRRTY trades at $3.71.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MRRTY's P/E ratio is 11.24. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MRRTY's ROE of +0.53%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MRRTY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FPAFF has a market cap of 3.32B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FPAFF trades at $0.78.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FPAFF's P/E ratio is 5.57. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FPAFF's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FPAFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NSFMF has a market cap of 3.26B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NSFMF trades at $11.50.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NSFMF's P/E ratio is 14.94. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NSFMF's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NSFMF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GLAPY has a market cap of 3.22B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GLAPY trades at $63.35.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GLAPY's P/E ratio is 20.30. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GLAPY's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GLAPY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FPAFY has a market cap of 3.15B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FPAFY trades at $3.70.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FPAFY's P/E ratio is 5.21. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FPAFY's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FPAFY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NOMD has a market cap of 3.07B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NOMD trades at $20.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NOMD's P/E ratio is 12.99. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NOMD's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NOMD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GLAPF has a market cap of 3.06B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GLAPF trades at $12.04.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GLAPF's P/E ratio is 19.42. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GLAPF's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GLAPF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NCHEY has a market cap of 3.06B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NCHEY trades at $12.10.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NCHEY's P/E ratio is 18.06. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NCHEY's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NCHEY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, YMZBY has a market cap of 3.02B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while YMZBY trades at $152.75.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas YMZBY's P/E ratio is 12.80. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to YMZBY's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to YMZBY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, UVRBY has a market cap of 2.99B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while UVRBY trades at $14.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas UVRBY's P/E ratio is 14.29. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to UVRBY's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to UVRBY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TATYF has a market cap of 2.97B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TATYF trades at $6.75.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TATYF's P/E ratio is 13.24. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TATYF's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TATYF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CBCFF has a market cap of 2.78B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CBCFF trades at $22.22.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CBCFF's P/E ratio is 21.16. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CBCFF's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CBCFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, EBRPY has a market cap of 2.75B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while EBRPY trades at $17.90.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas EBRPY's P/E ratio is 20.34. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to EBRPY's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to EBRPY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, EBRPF has a market cap of 2.73B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while EBRPF trades at $17.76.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas EBRPF's P/E ratio is 15.72. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to EBRPF's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to EBRPF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SUEZF has a market cap of 2.62B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SUEZF trades at $12.84.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SUEZF's P/E ratio is 51.36. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SUEZF's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SUEZF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, LYSFF has a market cap of 2.61B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while LYSFF trades at $4.39.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas LYSFF's P/E ratio is 10.21. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to LYSFF's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to LYSFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, LYSFY has a market cap of 2.59B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while LYSFY trades at $8.69.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas LYSFY's P/E ratio is 10.10. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to LYSFY's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to LYSFY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, JJSF has a market cap of 2.57B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while JJSF trades at $131.84.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas JJSF's P/E ratio is 30.38. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to JJSF's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to JJSF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ARZTY has a market cap of 2.50B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ARZTY trades at $1.05.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ARZTY's P/E ratio is 17.50. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ARZTY's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ARZTY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CLBEY has a market cap of 2.48B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CLBEY trades at $4.97.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CLBEY's P/E ratio is 17.12. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CLBEY's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CLBEY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PRBZF has a market cap of 2.46B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PRBZF trades at $54.84.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PRBZF's P/E ratio is 27.84. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PRBZF's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PRBZF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NHFOF has a market cap of 2.43B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NHFOF trades at $24.69.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NHFOF's P/E ratio is 9.57. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NHFOF's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NHFOF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FTROF has a market cap of 2.37B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FTROF trades at $1.53.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FTROF's P/E ratio is 9.56. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FTROF's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FTROF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, UVRBF has a market cap of 2.35B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while UVRBF trades at $1.10.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas UVRBF's P/E ratio is 11.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to UVRBF's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to UVRBF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PRRFY has a market cap of 2.34B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PRRFY trades at $13.60.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PRRFY's P/E ratio is 16.39. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PRRFY's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PRRFY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SOVO has a market cap of 2.34B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SOVO trades at $22.98.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SOVO's P/E ratio is 79.24. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SOVO's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SOVO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SUEZY has a market cap of 2.33B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SUEZY trades at $5.72.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SUEZY's P/E ratio is 47.67. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SUEZY's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SUEZY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TBLMF has a market cap of 2.33B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TBLMF trades at $14.98.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TBLMF's P/E ratio is 15.77. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TBLMF's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TBLMF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MLFNF has a market cap of 2.25B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MLFNF trades at $18.18.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MLFNF's P/E ratio is 32.47. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MLFNF's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MLFNF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SGLJF has a market cap of 2.21B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SGLJF trades at $15.04.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SGLJF's P/E ratio is 20.05. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SGLJF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SGLJF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PFODF has a market cap of 2.11B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PFODF trades at $2.45.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PFODF's P/E ratio is 14.41. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PFODF's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PFODF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CENTA has a market cap of 2.09B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CENTA trades at $31.03.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CENTA's P/E ratio is 17.24. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CENTA's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CENTA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GRPBF has a market cap of 2.08B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GRPBF trades at $0.84.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GRPBF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GRPBF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GRPBF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CENT has a market cap of 2.07B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CENT trades at $35.13.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CENT's P/E ratio is 19.30. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CENT's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CENT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ARZTF has a market cap of 2.05B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ARZTF trades at $2.07.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ARZTF's P/E ratio is 18.82. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ARZTF's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ARZTF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HOFJF has a market cap of 1.83B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HOFJF trades at $19.48.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HOFJF's P/E ratio is 24.05. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HOFJF's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HOFJF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AVSFY has a market cap of 1.80B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AVSFY trades at $27.05.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AVSFY's P/E ratio is 14.86. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AVSFY's ROE of +0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AVSFY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TBLMY has a market cap of 1.69B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TBLMY trades at $10.82.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TBLMY's P/E ratio is 12.02. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TBLMY's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TBLMY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FSRCY has a market cap of 1.69B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FSRCY trades at $109.15.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FSRCY's P/E ratio is 9.57. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FSRCY's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FSRCY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, YNNHF has a market cap of 1.65B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while YNNHF trades at $1.70.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas YNNHF's P/E ratio is 17.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to YNNHF's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to YNNHF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, KLG has a market cap of 1.50B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while KLG trades at $17.35.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas KLG's P/E ratio is 21.16. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to KLG's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to KLG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FNEVF has a market cap of 1.42B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FNEVF trades at $0.97.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FNEVF's P/E ratio is 12.16. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FNEVF's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FNEVF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TUFUF has a market cap of 1.40B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TUFUF trades at $0.39.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TUFUF's P/E ratio is 12.92. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TUFUF's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TUFUF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HLFGY has a market cap of 1.39B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HLFGY trades at $15.46.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HLFGY's P/E ratio is 24.16. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HLFGY's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HLFGY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, VTSYF has a market cap of 1.37B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while VTSYF trades at $1.28.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas VTSYF's P/E ratio is 128.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to VTSYF's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to VTSYF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NISUY has a market cap of 1.33B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NISUY trades at $42.80.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NISUY's P/E ratio is 10.62. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NISUY's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NISUY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FNEVY has a market cap of 1.24B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FNEVY trades at $4.25.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FNEVY's P/E ratio is 10.90. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FNEVY's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FNEVY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, THS has a market cap of 1.18B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while THS trades at $23.43.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas THS's P/E ratio is 45.94. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to THS's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to THS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AKEJF has a market cap of 1.12B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AKEJF trades at $35.12.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AKEJF's P/E ratio is 28.55. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AKEJF's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AKEJF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GNCGY has a market cap of 1.09B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GNCGY trades at $9.43.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GNCGY's P/E ratio is 0.18. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GNCGY's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GNCGY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GBFBF has a market cap of 1.06B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GBFBF trades at $2.60.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GBFBF's P/E ratio is 12.38. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GBFBF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GBFBF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HLTFF has a market cap of 1.03B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HLTFF trades at $11.45.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HLTFF's P/E ratio is 22.45. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HLTFF's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HLTFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BKKVF has a market cap of 1.00B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BKKVF trades at $1.73.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BKKVF's P/E ratio is 14.42. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BKKVF's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BKKVF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, UTZ has a market cap of 1.00B. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while UTZ trades at $11.62.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas UTZ's P/E ratio is 35.21. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to UTZ's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to UTZ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GNCGF has a market cap of 981.00M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GNCGF trades at $2.27.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GNCGF's P/E ratio is 0.17. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GNCGF's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GNCGF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GUZOF has a market cap of 969.99M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GUZOF trades at $2.90.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GUZOF's P/E ratio is 13.79. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GUZOF's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GUZOF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, VAGNF has a market cap of 945.51M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while VAGNF trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas VAGNF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to VAGNF's ROE of -13.09%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to VAGNF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, JWLLF has a market cap of 925.94M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while JWLLF trades at $22.20.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas JWLLF's P/E ratio is 25.81. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to JWLLF's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to JWLLF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GKSDF has a market cap of 905.17M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GKSDF trades at $2.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GKSDF's P/E ratio is -9.52. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GKSDF's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GKSDF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SENEM has a market cap of 877.69M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SENEM trades at $58.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SENEM's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SENEM's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SENEM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BTSDF has a market cap of 813.11M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BTSDF trades at $1.26.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BTSDF's P/E ratio is -126.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BTSDF's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BTSDF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HLF has a market cap of 740.43M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HLF trades at $7.27.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HLF's P/E ratio is 2.64. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HLF's ROE of -0.32%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HLF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, JBSS has a market cap of 713.88M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while JBSS trades at $61.34.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas JBSS's P/E ratio is 14.75. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to JBSS's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to JBSS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BNGRF has a market cap of 698.78M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BNGRF trades at $52.30.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BNGRF's P/E ratio is 5.97. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BNGRF's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BNGRF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, DEITF has a market cap of 673.27M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while DEITF trades at $3.94.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas DEITF's P/E ratio is 18.76. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to DEITF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to DEITF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ZNZNF has a market cap of 656.49M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ZNZNF trades at $18.85.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ZNZNF's P/E ratio is 40.11. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ZNZNF's ROE of +0.71%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ZNZNF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SENEA has a market cap of 618.40M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SENEA trades at $89.58.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SENEA's P/E ratio is 15.83. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SENEA's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SENEA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, DEVOY has a market cap of 610.90M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while DEVOY trades at $7.15.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas DEVOY's P/E ratio is 17.44. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to DEVOY's ROE of +0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to DEVOY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SENEB has a market cap of 605.56M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SENEB trades at $88.99.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SENEB's P/E ratio is 15.92. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SENEB's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SENEB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, WEST has a market cap of 592.44M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while WEST trades at $6.26.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas WEST's P/E ratio is -7.03. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to WEST's ROE of -0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to WEST. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SMLKF has a market cap of 585.71M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SMLKF trades at $0.97.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SMLKF's P/E ratio is -24.27. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SMLKF's ROE of -0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SMLKF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, THRN has a market cap of 550.63M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while THRN trades at $10.19.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas THRN's P/E ratio is 26.13. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to THRN's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to THRN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, USNA has a market cap of 545.24M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while USNA trades at $28.91.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas USNA's P/E ratio is 13.20. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to USNA's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to USNA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, STKL has a market cap of 533.45M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while STKL trades at $4.55.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas STKL's P/E ratio is -45.50. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to STKL's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to STKL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BGS has a market cap of 507.67M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BGS trades at $6.42.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BGS's P/E ratio is -2.02. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BGS's ROE of -0.36%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BGS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, RIDYF has a market cap of 492.70M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while RIDYF trades at $1.56.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas RIDYF's P/E ratio is 19.50. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to RIDYF's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to RIDYF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AUDYF has a market cap of 463.89M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AUDYF trades at $0.26.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AUDYF's P/E ratio is 26.07. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AUDYF's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AUDYF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, INDFF has a market cap of 432.73M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while INDFF trades at $0.31.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas INDFF's P/E ratio is 10.33. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to INDFF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to INDFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, RCLFF has a market cap of 424.58M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while RCLFF trades at $0.47.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas RCLFF's P/E ratio is 9.47. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to RCLFF's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to RCLFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, WYHG has a market cap of 375.97M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while WYHG trades at $7.47.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas WYHG's P/E ratio is 31.13. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to WYHG's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to WYHG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, OCGPF has a market cap of 369.89M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while OCGPF trades at $3.10.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas OCGPF's P/E ratio is 6.33. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to OCGPF's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to OCGPF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HLNFF has a market cap of 359.61M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HLNFF trades at $12.16.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HLNFF's P/E ratio is 6.43. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HLNFF's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HLNFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, LWAY has a market cap of 354.99M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while LWAY trades at $23.35.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas LWAY's P/E ratio is 38.92. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to LWAY's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to LWAY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SHVTF has a market cap of 348.16M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SHVTF trades at $2.45.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SHVTF's P/E ratio is 245.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SHVTF's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SHVTF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CUSI has a market cap of 316.06M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CUSI trades at $18.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CUSI's P/E ratio is -105.88. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CUSI's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CUSI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HAIN has a market cap of 261.72M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HAIN trades at $2.90.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HAIN's P/E ratio is -1.49. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HAIN's ROE of -0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HAIN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MAMA has a market cap of 249.26M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MAMA trades at $6.63.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MAMA's P/E ratio is 82.88. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MAMA's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MAMA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AMNF has a market cap of 242.63M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AMNF trades at $7.57.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AMNF's P/E ratio is 28.02. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AMNF's ROE of +0.45%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AMNF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NATR has a market cap of 231.04M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NATR trades at $12.50.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NATR's P/E ratio is 31.25. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NATR's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NATR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FREE has a market cap of 211.57M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FREE trades at $4.87.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FREE's P/E ratio is -8.54. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FREE's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FREE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BYND has a market cap of 195.54M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BYND trades at $2.56.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BYND's P/E ratio is -1.05. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BYND's ROE of +0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BYND. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BRCC has a market cap of 187.09M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BRCC trades at $2.38.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BRCC's P/E ratio is -59.50. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BRCC's ROE of -0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BRCC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, WESTW has a market cap of 168.42M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while WESTW trades at $1.92.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas WESTW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to WESTW's ROE of -0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to WESTW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, WWNTY has a market cap of 153.68M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while WWNTY trades at $32.44.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas WWNTY's P/E ratio is 13.52. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to WWNTY's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to WWNTY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, LFVN has a market cap of 147.85M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while LFVN trades at $11.78.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas LFVN's P/E ratio is 20.67. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to LFVN's ROE of +0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to LFVN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FTLF has a market cap of 145.36M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FTLF trades at $15.49.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FTLF's P/E ratio is 17.02. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FTLF's ROE of +0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FTLF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MMMB has a market cap of 136.82M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MMMB trades at $3.75.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MMMB's P/E ratio is 41.67. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MMMB's ROE of +0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MMMB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SOSCF has a market cap of 125.00M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SOSCF trades at $0.25.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SOSCF's P/E ratio is -25.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SOSCF's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SOSCF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BRLS has a market cap of 122.71M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BRLS trades at $5.74.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BRLS's P/E ratio is -47.83. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BRLS's ROE of -3.32%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BRLS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CELV has a market cap of 121.17M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CELV trades at $0.97.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CELV's P/E ratio is -10.72. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CELV's ROE of -0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CELV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PLIN has a market cap of 115.62M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PLIN trades at $1.15.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PLIN's P/E ratio is -0.83. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PLIN's ROE of -4.43%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PLIN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SHGXY has a market cap of 106.93M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SHGXY trades at $0.66.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SHGXY's P/E ratio is 22.07. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SHGXY's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SHGXY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ATPC has a market cap of 104.01M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ATPC trades at $2.08.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ATPC's P/E ratio is -3.35. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ATPC's ROE of -0.85%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ATPC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BUBSF has a market cap of 92.80M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BUBSF trades at $0.10.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BUBSF's P/E ratio is -10.39. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BUBSF's ROE of -0.48%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BUBSF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GBCMY has a market cap of 86.50M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GBCMY trades at $0.49.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GBCMY's P/E ratio is 0.32. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GBCMY's ROE of -1.78%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GBCMY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PAVS has a market cap of 82.07M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PAVS trades at $1.23.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PAVS's P/E ratio is -0.36. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PAVS's ROE of -2.87%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PAVS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BRID has a market cap of 71.25M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BRID trades at $7.85.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BRID's P/E ratio is -12.46. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BRID's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BRID. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PTCXF has a market cap of 70.48M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PTCXF trades at $0.11.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PTCXF's P/E ratio is 11.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PTCXF's ROE of +0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PTCXF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, LSF has a market cap of 65.09M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while LSF trades at $6.32.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas LSF's P/E ratio is -35.11. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to LSF's ROE of -0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to LSF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MITC has a market cap of 57.47M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MITC trades at $3.34.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MITC's P/E ratio is -2.15. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MITC's ROE of -1.88%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MITC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, VGANF has a market cap of 53.64M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while VGANF trades at $0.47.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas VGANF's P/E ratio is -46.52. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to VGANF's ROE of +35.55%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to VGANF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HOJI has a market cap of 44.13M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HOJI trades at $4.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HOJI's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HOJI's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HOJI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FARM has a market cap of 37.37M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FARM trades at $1.75.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FARM's P/E ratio is -3.57. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FARM's ROE of -0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FARM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ZHYBF has a market cap of 35.42M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ZHYBF trades at $2.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ZHYBF's P/E ratio is 100.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ZHYBF's ROE of -1.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ZHYBF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ABVE has a market cap of 33.65M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ABVE trades at $1.18.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ABVE's P/E ratio is -0.67. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ABVE's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ABVE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CVNZF has a market cap of 32.34M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CVNZF trades at $0.46.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CVNZF's P/E ratio is -0.67. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CVNZF's ROE of -0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CVNZF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CLXT has a market cap of 31.33M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CLXT trades at $6.30.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CLXT's P/E ratio is -1.64. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CLXT's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CLXT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HAPP has a market cap of 31.30M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HAPP trades at $4.50.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HAPP's P/E ratio is -0.18. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HAPP's ROE of -0.62%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HAPP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, KPEA has a market cap of 29.23M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while KPEA trades at $0.07.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas KPEA's P/E ratio is -7.31. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to KPEA's ROE of +0.31%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to KPEA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FRDZF has a market cap of 26.59M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FRDZF trades at $0.09.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FRDZF's P/E ratio is -0.38. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FRDZF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FRDZF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, YGF has a market cap of 23.47M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while YGF trades at $0.73.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas YGF's P/E ratio is 5.24. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to YGF's ROE of +0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to YGF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HNFSA has a market cap of 20.70M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HNFSA trades at $70.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HNFSA's P/E ratio is 4.45. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HNFSA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HNFSA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HNFSB has a market cap of 20.70M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HNFSB trades at $62.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HNFSB's P/E ratio is 3.94. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HNFSB's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HNFSB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ORIS has a market cap of 20.25M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ORIS trades at $0.92.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ORIS's P/E ratio is 3.83. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ORIS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ORIS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SWSSF has a market cap of 20.10M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SWSSF trades at $2.11.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SWSSF's P/E ratio is 23.47. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SWSSF's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SWSSF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GWLL has a market cap of 19.80M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GWLL trades at $0.20.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GWLL's P/E ratio is -20.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GWLL's ROE of -4.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GWLL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BOF has a market cap of 19.33M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BOF trades at $2.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BOF's P/E ratio is -2.43. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BOF's ROE of -2.52%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BOF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BRCNF has a market cap of 18.47M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BRCNF trades at $0.07.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BRCNF's P/E ratio is -0.56. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BRCNF's ROE of -1.57%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BRCNF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, JVA has a market cap of 18.44M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while JVA trades at $3.23.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas JVA's P/E ratio is 6.09. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to JVA's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to JVA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BFNH has a market cap of 18.44M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BFNH trades at $0.55.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BFNH's P/E ratio is -27.50. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BFNH's ROE of +0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BFNH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NAII has a market cap of 17.54M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NAII trades at $2.83.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NAII's P/E ratio is -2.19. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NAII's ROE of -0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NAII. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, COOT has a market cap of 17.04M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while COOT trades at $0.73.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas COOT's P/E ratio is -1.09. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to COOT's ROE of +0.57%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to COOT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ELAMF has a market cap of 16.13M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ELAMF trades at $2.15.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ELAMF's P/E ratio is -5.24. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ELAMF's ROE of -0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ELAMF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NCRA has a market cap of 14.30M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NCRA trades at $1.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NCRA's P/E ratio is -2.83. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NCRA's ROE of -0.90%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NCRA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, DWIS has a market cap of 13.67M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while DWIS trades at $0.08.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas DWIS's P/E ratio is -0.48. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to DWIS's ROE of +0.30%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to DWIS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TTCF has a market cap of 13.22M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TTCF trades at $0.16.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TTCF's P/E ratio is -0.12. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TTCF's ROE of -0.93%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TTCF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, IRCKF has a market cap of 12.68M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while IRCKF trades at $0.58.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas IRCKF's P/E ratio is 8.29. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to IRCKF's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to IRCKF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, DTEAF has a market cap of 12.49M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while DTEAF trades at $0.46.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas DTEAF's P/E ratio is -0.83. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to DTEAF's ROE of -0.52%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to DTEAF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BRZL has a market cap of 11.48M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BRZL trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BRZL's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BRZL's ROE of +1.64%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BRZL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PETZ has a market cap of 10.68M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PETZ trades at $1.04.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PETZ's P/E ratio is 5.17. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PETZ's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PETZ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NPRFF has a market cap of 9.00M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NPRFF trades at $0.09.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NPRFF's P/E ratio is -2.16. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NPRFF's ROE of +1.11%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NPRFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ELNSF has a market cap of 8.96M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ELNSF trades at $0.07.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ELNSF's P/E ratio is -1.40. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ELNSF's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ELNSF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, INBP has a market cap of 8.79M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while INBP trades at $0.29.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas INBP's P/E ratio is 9.67. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to INBP's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to INBP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GFCOF has a market cap of 8.66M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GFCOF trades at $0.10.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GFCOF's P/E ratio is -9.91. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GFCOF's ROE of +1.09%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GFCOF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PLAG has a market cap of 8.59M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PLAG trades at $1.18.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PLAG's P/E ratio is -1.16. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PLAG's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PLAG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, DDC has a market cap of 7.56M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while DDC trades at $2.40.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas DDC's P/E ratio is -0.02. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to DDC's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to DDC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SOWG has a market cap of 7.47M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SOWG trades at $0.63.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SOWG's P/E ratio is -1.57. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SOWG's ROE of -0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SOWG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NUZE has a market cap of 6.92M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NUZE trades at $0.75.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NUZE's P/E ratio is -0.10. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NUZE's ROE of -16.20%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NUZE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HCWC has a market cap of 6.91M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HCWC trades at $0.40.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HCWC's P/E ratio is -0.82. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HCWC's ROE of -0.77%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HCWC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, IMG has a market cap of 6.23M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while IMG trades at $0.58.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas IMG's P/E ratio is -0.08. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to IMG's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to IMG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, INDFY has a market cap of 6.23M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while INDFY trades at $11.15.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas INDFY's P/E ratio is 6.06. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to INDFY's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to INDFY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BABB has a market cap of 5.94M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BABB trades at $0.82.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BABB's P/E ratio is 10.23. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BABB's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BABB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AMNCB has a market cap of 5.37M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AMNCB trades at $0.23.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AMNCB's P/E ratio is -0.02. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AMNCB's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AMNCB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BTTR has a market cap of 5.13M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BTTR trades at $2.12.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BTTR's P/E ratio is -21.20. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BTTR's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BTTR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NGTF has a market cap of 4.62M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NGTF trades at $0.04.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NGTF's P/E ratio is -1.19. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NGTF's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NGTF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, VEJIF has a market cap of 4.09M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while VEJIF trades at $0.34.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas VEJIF's P/E ratio is 0.14. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to VEJIF's ROE of +1.97%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to VEJIF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BABYF has a market cap of 3.80M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BABYF trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BABYF's P/E ratio is -0.15. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BABYF's ROE of -3.79%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BABYF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PSYCF has a market cap of 3.77M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PSYCF trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PSYCF's P/E ratio is -1.31. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PSYCF's ROE of -0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PSYCF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GDMK has a market cap of 3.69M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GDMK trades at $0.23.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GDMK's P/E ratio is -2.86. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GDMK's ROE of +0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GDMK. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TOFB has a market cap of 3.21M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TOFB trades at $0.62.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TOFB's P/E ratio is -3.66. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TOFB's ROE of -0.26%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TOFB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CYAN has a market cap of 3.08M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CYAN trades at $0.43.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CYAN's P/E ratio is -0.63. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CYAN's ROE of -0.45%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CYAN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, LNLHF has a market cap of 3.04M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while LNLHF trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas LNLHF's P/E ratio is -0.50. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to LNLHF's ROE of +11.93%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to LNLHF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BGACF has a market cap of 2.82M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BGACF trades at $0.06.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BGACF's P/E ratio is -3.04. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BGACF's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BGACF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FREEW has a market cap of 2.82M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FREEW trades at $0.07.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FREEW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FREEW's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FREEW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, DZGH has a market cap of 2.78M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while DZGH trades at $6.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas DZGH's P/E ratio is -0.08. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to DZGH's ROE of +8.12%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is less volatile compared to DZGH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ABVEW has a market cap of 2.73M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ABVEW trades at $0.06.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ABVEW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ABVEW's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ABVEW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, STKH has a market cap of 2.44M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while STKH trades at $3.03.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas STKH's P/E ratio is -0.30. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to STKH's ROE of -1.35%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to STKH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BRLSW has a market cap of 2.38M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BRLSW trades at $0.12.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BRLSW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BRLSW's ROE of -3.32%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BRLSW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BLEG has a market cap of 2.31M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BLEG trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BLEG's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BLEG's ROE of -0.32%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BLEG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, RGF has a market cap of 2.18M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while RGF trades at $1.25.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas RGF's P/E ratio is -0.05. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to RGF's ROE of -0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to RGF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FAMI has a market cap of 2.11M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FAMI trades at $1.69.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FAMI's P/E ratio is -0.22. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FAMI's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FAMI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SNAX has a market cap of 1.87M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SNAX trades at $0.43.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SNAX's P/E ratio is -0.08. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SNAX's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SNAX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MDRNF has a market cap of 1.74M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MDRNF trades at $0.14.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MDRNF's P/E ratio is -1.57. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MDRNF's ROE of +0.76%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MDRNF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GLUC has a market cap of 1.58M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GLUC trades at $0.09.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GLUC's P/E ratio is -4.65. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GLUC's ROE of -3.73%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GLUC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MOOOF has a market cap of 1.53M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MOOOF trades at $0.14.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MOOOF's P/E ratio is -0.43. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MOOOF's ROE of -19.09%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MOOOF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BTOG has a market cap of 1.50M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BTOG trades at $0.18.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BTOG's P/E ratio is -0.10. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BTOG's ROE of -6.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BTOG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PECD has a market cap of 1.48M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PECD trades at $0.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PECD's P/E ratio is -0.06. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PECD's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PECD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CULTF has a market cap of 1.30M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CULTF trades at $0.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CULTF's P/E ratio is -0.83. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CULTF's ROE of -0.44%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CULTF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MYLKF has a market cap of 1.24M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MYLKF trades at $0.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MYLKF's P/E ratio is -0.15. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MYLKF's ROE of +5.90%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MYLKF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BLLB has a market cap of 1.18M. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BLLB trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BLLB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BLLB's ROE of +0.34%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BLLB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AVRW has a market cap of 915532.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AVRW trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AVRW's P/E ratio is -0.39. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AVRW's ROE of +0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AVRW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MTTCF has a market cap of 845658.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MTTCF trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MTTCF's P/E ratio is -0.10. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MTTCF's ROE of -1.35%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MTTCF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, RTON has a market cap of 787453.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while RTON trades at $0.03.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas RTON's P/E ratio is -1.25. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to RTON's ROE of +0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to RTON. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SHRG has a market cap of 767937.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SHRG trades at $2.48.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SHRG's P/E ratio is -0.13. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SHRG's ROE of +1.48%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SHRG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BSFC has a market cap of 762394.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BSFC trades at $0.05.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BSFC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BSFC's ROE of -1.35%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BSFC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, WLCOF has a market cap of 577999.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while WLCOF trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas WLCOF's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to WLCOF's ROE of +3.83%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to WLCOF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BDPT has a market cap of 542920.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BDPT trades at $0.06.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BDPT's P/E ratio is -1.20. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BDPT's ROE of +0.51%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BDPT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AMNC has a market cap of 518938.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AMNC trades at $0.04.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AMNC's P/E ratio is -0.04. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AMNC's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AMNC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NRGT has a market cap of 500960.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NRGT trades at $0.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NRGT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NRGT's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NRGT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, DMAN has a market cap of 489858.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while DMAN trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas DMAN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to DMAN's ROE of +3.77%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to DMAN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AJOY has a market cap of 471370.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AJOY trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AJOY's P/E ratio is 0.10. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AJOY's ROE of +4.41%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AJOY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, QEDN has a market cap of 440526.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while QEDN trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas QEDN's P/E ratio is -0.20. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to QEDN's ROE of +2.56%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to QEDN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MEALF has a market cap of 435831.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MEALF trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MEALF's P/E ratio is -0.90. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MEALF's ROE of +0.73%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MEALF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TQLB has a market cap of 424158.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TQLB trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TQLB's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TQLB's ROE of +19.46%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TQLB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, VPRIF has a market cap of 414113.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while VPRIF trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas VPRIF's P/E ratio is -1.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to VPRIF's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to VPRIF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, YGYIP has a market cap of 377891.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while YGYIP trades at $0.20.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas YGYIP's P/E ratio is -0.11. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to YGYIP's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to YGYIP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, YGYI has a market cap of 377891.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while YGYI trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas YGYI's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to YGYI's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to YGYI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, DEWM has a market cap of 354501.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while DEWM trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas DEWM's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to DEWM's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to DEWM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NUVM has a market cap of 351544.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NUVM trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NUVM's P/E ratio is -0.40. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NUVM's ROE of +0.63%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NUVM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FITSF has a market cap of 341689.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FITSF trades at $0.04.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FITSF's P/E ratio is 0.03. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FITSF's ROE of -1.38%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FITSF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NHMD has a market cap of 331302.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NHMD trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NHMD's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NHMD's ROE of +0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NHMD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, YCRM has a market cap of 323085.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while YCRM trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas YCRM's P/E ratio is 0.08. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to YCRM's ROE of -0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to YCRM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, VGGIF has a market cap of 318017.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while VGGIF trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas VGGIF's P/E ratio is -0.06. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to VGGIF's ROE of -7.37%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to VGGIF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GEGI has a market cap of 272160.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GEGI trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GEGI's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GEGI's ROE of -0.38%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GEGI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BON has a market cap of 254243.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BON trades at $0.05.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BON's P/E ratio is 0.31. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BON's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BON. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, RRSFF has a market cap of 243316.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while RRSFF trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas RRSFF's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to RRSFF's ROE of -29.36%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to RRSFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, LATF has a market cap of 206513.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while LATF trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas LATF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to LATF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to LATF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CMFO has a market cap of 196172.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CMFO trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CMFO's P/E ratio is -0.66. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CMFO's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CMFO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PLFLF has a market cap of 179690.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PLFLF trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PLFLF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PLFLF's ROE of -2.84%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PLFLF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PNGAF has a market cap of 145662.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PNGAF trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PNGAF's P/E ratio is -0.10. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PNGAF's ROE of +2.34%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PNGAF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TLCC has a market cap of 129547.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TLCC trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TLCC's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TLCC's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TLCC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HCEI has a market cap of 118427.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HCEI trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HCEI's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HCEI's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HCEI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, KOMOF has a market cap of 116628.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while KOMOF trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas KOMOF's P/E ratio is -1.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to KOMOF's ROE of +2.44%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to KOMOF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AJYG has a market cap of 100222.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AJYG trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AJYG's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AJYG's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AJYG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AVOZ has a market cap of 64662.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AVOZ trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AVOZ's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AVOZ's ROE of +1.36%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AVOZ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, RRRT has a market cap of 57168.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while RRRT trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas RRRT's P/E ratio is -0.08. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to RRRT's ROE of +8.93%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to RRRT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, GHAV has a market cap of 52890.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while GHAV trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas GHAV's P/E ratio is -0.02. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to GHAV's ROE of -1.01%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to GHAV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, VITX has a market cap of 43548.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while VITX trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas VITX's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to VITX's ROE of +2.38%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to VITX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NTRU has a market cap of 32223.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NTRU trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NTRU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NTRU's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NTRU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SNAXW has a market cap of 26810.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SNAXW trades at $0.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SNAXW's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SNAXW's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SNAXW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, RYNL has a market cap of 23043.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while RYNL trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas RYNL's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to RYNL's ROE of +6.55%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to RYNL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, UPDC has a market cap of 19498.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while UPDC trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas UPDC's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to UPDC's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to UPDC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, TTCFQ has a market cap of 8366.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while TTCFQ trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas TTCFQ's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to TTCFQ's ROE of -0.92%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to TTCFQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, AVIX has a market cap of 7085.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while AVIX trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas AVIX's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to AVIX's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to AVIX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BCCI has a market cap of 6544.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BCCI trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BCCI's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BCCI's ROE of +1.59%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BCCI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, OGGFF has a market cap of 6247.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while OGGFF trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas OGGFF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to OGGFF's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to OGGFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, RIBT has a market cap of 4002.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while RIBT trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas RIBT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to RIBT's ROE of +1.36%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to RIBT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, YGFGF has a market cap of 3200.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while YGFGF trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas YGFGF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to YGFGF's ROE of +0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to YGFGF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, PLBLF has a market cap of 2952.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while PLBLF trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas PLBLF's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to PLBLF's ROE of -1.69%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to PLBLF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, NBRY has a market cap of 2200.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while NBRY trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas NBRY's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to NBRY's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to NBRY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, MIXX has a market cap of 1500.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while MIXX trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas MIXX's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to MIXX's ROE of -1.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to MIXX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, CRMBQ has a market cap of 1253.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while CRMBQ trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas CRMBQ's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to CRMBQ's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to CRMBQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HBISD has a market cap of 1056.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HBISD trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HBISD's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HBISD's ROE of +0.65%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HBISD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, RFBC has a market cap of 800.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while RFBC trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas RFBC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to RFBC's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to RFBC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ROAG has a market cap of 313.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ROAG trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ROAG's P/E ratio is 0.00. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ROAG's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ROAG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, ANFIF has a market cap of 222.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while ANFIF trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas ANFIF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to ANFIF's ROE of -2.81%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to ANFIF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SMFL has a market cap of 171.00. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SMFL trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SMFL's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SMFL's ROE of +5.18%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SMFL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SELR comparison data is unavailable. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SELR trades at $0.03.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SELR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SELR's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SELR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, FRFAF comparison data is unavailable. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while FRFAF trades at $0.91.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas FRFAF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to FRFAF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to FRFAF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SENOF comparison data is unavailable. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SENOF trades at $2.73.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SENOF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SENOF's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SENOF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, DTEA comparison data is unavailable. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while DTEA trades at $0.52.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas DTEA's P/E ratio is -1.44. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to DTEA's ROE of +9.18%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to DTEA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, SAFM comparison data is unavailable. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while SAFM trades at $204.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas SAFM's P/E ratio is 5.28. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to SAFM's ROE of +0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to SAFM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HRCR comparison data is unavailable. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HRCR trades at $4,250.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HRCR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HRCR's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HRCR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, HCWFF comparison data is unavailable. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while HCWFF trades at $0.11.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas HCWFF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to HCWFF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to HCWFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, BRCN comparison data is unavailable. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while BRCN trades at $0.44.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas BRCN's P/E ratio is -6.67. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to BRCN's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to BRCN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, KWPCY comparison data is unavailable. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while KWPCY trades at $32.45.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas KWPCY's P/E ratio is 18.23. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to KWPCY's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to KWPCY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.

ELOAF plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, ELOAF stands at 22.61B. In comparison, VGFC comparison data is unavailable. Regarding current trading prices, ELOAF is priced at $0.01, while VGFC trades at $0.05.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

ELOAF currently has a P/E ratio of 0.80, whereas VGFC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, ELOAF's ROE is -0.30%, compared to VGFC's ROE of -1.70%. Regarding short-term risk, ELOAF is more volatile compared to VGFC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ELOAF.