First Reserve Sustainable Growth Corp.
First Reserve Sustainable Growth Corp. FRSGW Peers
See (FRSGW) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Shell Companies Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRSGW | $0.00 | N/A | 282.5M | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| CCIV | $24.25 | +5.90% | 44.4B | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| PSACU | $17.08 | +0.35% | 12B | -108.79 | -$0.16 | N/A |
| RTPY | $9.91 | -0.30% | 11.6B | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| LVRAW | $0.04 | N/A | 11.5B | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| CMLFU | $13.00 | -4.55% | 10.3B | -1444.44 | -$0.01 | N/A |
| PSAC | $13.78 | -0.36% | 9.7B | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| GRSVU | $11.39 | +3.36% | 6.8B | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| APSG | $7.39 | N/A | 6.3B | 36.95 | $0.20 | N/A |
| RTP | $10.03 | -4.48% | 6.3B | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Stock Comparison
FRSGW vs CCIV Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, CCIV has a market cap of 44.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while CCIV trades at $24.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CCIV's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to CCIV's ROE of -0.69%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to CCIV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs PSACU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, PSACU has a market cap of 12B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while PSACU trades at $17.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PSACU's P/E ratio is -108.79. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to PSACU's ROE of -0.42%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to PSACU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs RTPY Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, RTPY has a market cap of 11.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while RTPY trades at $9.91.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RTPY's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to RTPY's ROE of -0.73%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to RTPY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs LVRAW Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, LVRAW has a market cap of 11.5B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while LVRAW trades at $0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LVRAW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to LVRAW's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to LVRAW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs CMLFU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, CMLFU has a market cap of 10.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while CMLFU trades at $13.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CMLFU's P/E ratio is -1444.44. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to CMLFU's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to CMLFU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs PSAC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, PSAC has a market cap of 9.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while PSAC trades at $13.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PSAC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to PSAC's ROE of -0.42%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to PSAC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs GRSVU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, GRSVU has a market cap of 6.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while GRSVU trades at $11.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GRSVU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to GRSVU's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to GRSVU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs APSG Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, APSG has a market cap of 6.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while APSG trades at $7.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas APSG's P/E ratio is 36.95. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to APSG's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to APSG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs RTP Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, RTP has a market cap of 6.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while RTP trades at $10.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RTP's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to RTP's ROE of -0.80%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to RTP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs DGNR Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, DGNR has a market cap of 5.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while DGNR trades at $9.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DGNR's P/E ratio is -308.67. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to DGNR's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to DGNR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs VTIQ Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, VTIQ has a market cap of 5.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while VTIQ trades at $10.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VTIQ's P/E ratio is 91.50. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to VTIQ's ROE of +472.81%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to VTIQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs VTIQU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, VTIQU has a market cap of 5.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while VTIQU trades at $10.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VTIQU's P/E ratio is 100.60. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to VTIQU's ROE of +472.81%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to VTIQU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs VACQ Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, VACQ has a market cap of 5.5B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while VACQ trades at $11.57.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VACQ's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to VACQ's ROE of -0.59%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to VACQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs SVFC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, SVFC has a market cap of 5.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while SVFC trades at $9.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SVFC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to SVFC's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to SVFC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs VGAC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, VGAC has a market cap of 5B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while VGAC trades at $10.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VGAC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to VGAC's ROE of -1.65%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to VGAC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs CMLT Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, CMLT has a market cap of 4.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while CMLT trades at $8.69.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CMLT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to CMLT's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to CMLT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs GHVI Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, GHVI has a market cap of 4.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while GHVI trades at $14.47.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GHVI's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to GHVI's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to GHVI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs KVSB Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, KVSB has a market cap of 4.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while KVSB trades at $11.12.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas KVSB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to KVSB's ROE of -0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to KVSB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs FTOCU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, FTOCU has a market cap of 4.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while FTOCU trades at $11.65.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FTOCU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to FTOCU's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to FTOCU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs THCBU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, THCBU has a market cap of 3.9B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while THCBU trades at $12.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas THCBU's P/E ratio is -101.87. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to THCBU's ROE of +0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to THCBU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs CLII Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, CLII has a market cap of 3.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while CLII trades at $14.36.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CLII's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to CLII's ROE of +0.71%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to CLII. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs GRNV Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, GRNV has a market cap of 3.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while GRNV trades at $12.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GRNV's P/E ratio is -59.68. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to GRNV's ROE of -101981.32%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to GRNV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs FRX Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, FRX has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while FRX trades at $12.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FRX's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to FRX's ROE of -0.34%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to FRX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs HOLUU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, HOLUU has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while HOLUU trades at $13.65.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HOLUU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to HOLUU's ROE of -0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to HOLUU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs SSPK Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, SSPK has a market cap of 3.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while SSPK trades at $18.84.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SSPK's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to SSPK's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to SSPK. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs FCACU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, FCACU has a market cap of 3.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while FCACU trades at $9.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FCACU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to FCACU's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to FCACU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs CFVI Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, CFVI has a market cap of 3.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while CFVI trades at $12.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CFVI's P/E ratio is -18.55. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to CFVI's ROE of -1.87%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to CFVI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs HOL Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, HOL has a market cap of 3.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while HOL trades at $12.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HOL's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to HOL's ROE of -0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to HOL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs SYM Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, SYM has a market cap of 3.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while SYM trades at $28.67.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SYM's P/E ratio is -358.37. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to SYM's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to SYM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs THCB Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, THCB has a market cap of 3.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while THCB trades at $10.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas THCB's P/E ratio is -81.30. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to THCB's ROE of +0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to THCB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs SOAC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, SOAC has a market cap of 2.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while SOAC trades at $10.62.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SOAC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to SOAC's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to SOAC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs FUSE Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, FUSE has a market cap of 2.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while FUSE trades at $10.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FUSE's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to FUSE's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to FUSE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs DCRBU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, DCRBU has a market cap of 2.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while DCRBU trades at $11.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DCRBU's P/E ratio is -16.00. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to DCRBU's ROE of -2.38%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to DCRBU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs IVAN Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, IVAN has a market cap of 2.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while IVAN trades at $7.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IVAN's P/E ratio is -698.18. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to IVAN's ROE of -0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to IVAN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs GWAC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, GWAC has a market cap of 2.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while GWAC trades at $10.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GWAC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to GWAC's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to GWAC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs LCYAU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, LCYAU has a market cap of 2.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while LCYAU trades at $13.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LCYAU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to LCYAU's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to LCYAU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs APXTU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, APXTU has a market cap of 2.5B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while APXTU trades at $13.61.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas APXTU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to APXTU's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to APXTU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs FWAA Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, FWAA has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while FWAA trades at $12.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FWAA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to FWAA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to FWAA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs GSAH Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, GSAH has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while GSAH trades at $10.54.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GSAH's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to GSAH's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to GSAH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs LCY Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, LCY has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while LCY trades at $12.17.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LCY's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to LCY's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to LCY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs FORE Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, FORE has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while FORE trades at $9.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FORE's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to FORE's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to FORE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs APXT Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, APXT has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while APXT trades at $12.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas APXT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to APXT's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to APXT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs RAAC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, RAAC has a market cap of 2.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while RAAC trades at $9.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RAAC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to RAAC's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to RAAC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs SPNV Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, SPNV has a market cap of 2.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while SPNV trades at $8.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SPNV's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to SPNV's ROE of -1.07%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to SPNV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs DNAC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, DNAC has a market cap of 2.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while DNAC trades at $9.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DNAC's P/E ratio is -37.72. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to DNAC's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to DNAC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs FAII Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, FAII has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while FAII trades at $10.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FAII's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to FAII's ROE of -0.32%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to FAII. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs DMYI Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, DMYI has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while DMYI trades at $10.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DMYI's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to DMYI's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to DMYI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs MNTN Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, MNTN has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while MNTN trades at $25.23.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MNTN's P/E ratio is -50.46. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to MNTN's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to MNTN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs LOKB Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, LOKB has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while LOKB trades at $13.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LOKB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to LOKB's ROE of -0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to LOKB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs STPC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, STPC has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while STPC trades at $9.87.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas STPC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to STPC's ROE of -0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to STPC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs MUDS Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, MUDS has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while MUDS trades at $10.17.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MUDS's P/E ratio is 3.39. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to MUDS's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to MUDS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs MUDSU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, MUDSU has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while MUDSU trades at $10.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MUDSU's P/E ratio is -1125.56. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to MUDSU's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to MUDSU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs TINV Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, TINV has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while TINV trades at $11.63.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TINV's P/E ratio is 30.61. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to TINV's ROE of -2.84%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to TINV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs CMII Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, CMII has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while CMII trades at $10.63.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CMII's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to CMII's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to CMII. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs DWAC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, DWAC has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while DWAC trades at $49.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DWAC's P/E ratio is -73.46. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to DWAC's ROE of -0.58%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to DWAC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs DWACU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, DWACU has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while DWACU trades at $61.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DWACU's P/E ratio is -451.10. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to DWACU's ROE of -0.58%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to DWACU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs ATHN Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, ATHN has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while ATHN trades at $9.59.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ATHN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to ATHN's ROE of -4.14%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to ATHN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs GMII Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, GMII has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while GMII trades at $8.37.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GMII's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to GMII's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to GMII. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs SVACU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, SVACU has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while SVACU trades at $9.89.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SVACU's P/E ratio is -22.89. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to SVACU's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to SVACU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs MOTV Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, MOTV has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while MOTV trades at $10.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MOTV's P/E ratio is 55.86. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to MOTV's ROE of -0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to MOTV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs SVAC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, SVAC has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while SVAC trades at $9.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SVAC's P/E ratio is -32.05. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to SVAC's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to SVAC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs CBAH Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, CBAH has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while CBAH trades at $10.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CBAH's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to CBAH's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to CBAH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs GXGXU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, GXGXU has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while GXGXU trades at $11.63.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GXGXU's P/E ratio is -23.73. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to GXGXU's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to GXGXU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs AONE Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, AONE has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while AONE trades at $8.56.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AONE's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to AONE's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to AONE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs SNPR Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, SNPR has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while SNPR trades at $9.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SNPR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to SNPR's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to SNPR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs SPFR Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, SPFR has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while SPFR trades at $8.44.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SPFR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to SPFR's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to SPFR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs DEH Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, DEH has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while DEH trades at $11.57.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DEH's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to DEH's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to DEH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs ROT Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, ROT has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while ROT trades at $10.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ROT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to ROT's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to ROT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs NGAC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, NGAC has a market cap of 1.5B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while NGAC trades at $8.83.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NGAC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to NGAC's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to NGAC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs GXGX Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, GXGX has a market cap of 1.5B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while GXGX trades at $10.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GXGX's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to GXGX's ROE of -3.35%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to GXGX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs HECCU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, HECCU has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while HECCU trades at $9.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HECCU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to HECCU's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to HECCU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs ATMR Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, ATMR has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while ATMR trades at $10.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ATMR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to ATMR's ROE of +0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to ATMR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs SFTW Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, SFTW has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while SFTW trades at $11.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SFTW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to SFTW's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to SFTW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs ENFA Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, ENFA has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while ENFA trades at $9.62.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ENFA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to ENFA's ROE of -825.62%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to ENFA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs ENVI Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, ENVI has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while ENVI trades at $8.82.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ENVI's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to ENVI's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to ENVI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs DFNS Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, DFNS has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while DFNS trades at $12.85.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DFNS's P/E ratio is -17.39. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to DFNS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to DFNS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs ACTD Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, ACTD has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while ACTD trades at $7.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ACTD's P/E ratio is -25.50. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to ACTD's ROE of +0.69%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to ACTD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs VCKA Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, VCKA has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while VCKA trades at $9.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VCKA's P/E ratio is 100.11. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to VCKA's ROE of +0.36%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to VCKA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs THMA Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, THMA has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while THMA trades at $9.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas THMA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to THMA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to THMA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs LNFA Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, LNFA has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while LNFA trades at $10.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LNFA's P/E ratio is 21.06. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to LNFA's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to LNFA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs FTIVU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, FTIVU has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while FTIVU trades at $14.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FTIVU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to FTIVU's ROE of -0.41%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to FTIVU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs STWO Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, STWO has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while STWO trades at $8.21.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas STWO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to STWO's ROE of -1.71%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to STWO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs HYACU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, HYACU has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while HYACU trades at $10.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HYACU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to HYACU's ROE of +0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to HYACU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs FTIV Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, FTIV has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while FTIV trades at $13.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FTIV's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to FTIV's ROE of -0.41%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to FTIV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs AHAC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, AHAC has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while AHAC trades at $10.96.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AHAC's P/E ratio is -72.11. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to AHAC's ROE of +2.86%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to AHAC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs AMHC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, AMHC has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while AMHC trades at $10.23.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AMHC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to AMHC's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to AMHC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs HERAW Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, HERAW has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while HERAW trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HERAW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to HERAW's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to HERAW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs HERA Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, HERA has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while HERA trades at $10.19.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HERA's P/E ratio is 46.32. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to HERA's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to HERA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs FGNA Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, FGNA has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while FGNA trades at $9.97.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FGNA's P/E ratio is -4.35. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to FGNA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to FGNA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs DNAA Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, DNAA has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while DNAA trades at $14.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DNAA's P/E ratio is -54.53. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to DNAA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to DNAA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs RACA Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, RACA has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while RACA trades at $10.27.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RACA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to RACA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to RACA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs TREB Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, TREB has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while TREB trades at $9.45.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TREB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to TREB's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to TREB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs PACE Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, PACE has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while PACE trades at $11.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PACE's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to PACE's ROE of -1.08%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to PACE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs HERAU Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, HERAU has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while HERAU trades at $10.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HERAU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to HERAU's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to HERAU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs LSAQ Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, LSAQ has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while LSAQ trades at $9.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LSAQ's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to LSAQ's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to LSAQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs SRAC Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, SRAC has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while SRAC trades at $10.97.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SRAC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to SRAC's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to SRAC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs FTPAW Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, FTPAW has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while FTPAW trades at $0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FTPAW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to FTPAW's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to FTPAW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs SBG Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, SBG has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while SBG trades at $8.84.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SBG's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to SBG's ROE of -3.85%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to SBG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.
FRSGW vs MTAL Comparison
FRSGW plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FRSGW stands at 282.5M. In comparison, MTAL has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, FRSGW is priced at $0.00, while MTAL trades at $12.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FRSGW currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MTAL's P/E ratio is -10.66. In terms of profitability, FRSGW's ROE is -0.04%, compared to MTAL's ROE of -0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, FRSGW is more volatile compared to MTAL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FRSGW.