CI Global Financial Sector ETF
CI Global Financial Sector ETF FSF.TO Peers
See (FSF.TO) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Asset Management - Global Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FSF.TO | CA$32.41 | -0.37% | 563.6M | N/A | N/A | +1.17% |
| IGAF.TO | CA$15.18 | +0.20% | 3.3B | N/A | N/A | +0.86% |
| TEC.TO | CA$44.91 | +1.45% | 3B | 35.24 | CA$1.27 | +0.12% |
| XGD.TO | CA$30.83 | -2.65% | 1.7B | 20.58 | CA$1.50 | +0.64% |
| TGED.TO | CA$27.02 | +0.78% | 1.1B | 30.40 | CA$0.89 | +3.45% |
| DXG.TO | CA$68.27 | +1.10% | 704.2M | 30.53 | CA$2.24 | +12.02% |
| CIF.TO | CA$51.43 | +0.84% | 608.6M | 13.75 | CA$3.74 | +2.79% |
| XHC.TO | CA$63.69 | +0.94% | 522.6M | 24.37 | CA$2.61 | +4.49% |
| XDG.TO | CA$27.74 | +1.09% | 468.9M | 17.36 | CA$1.60 | +2.97% |
| TQGD.TO | CA$20.47 | +1.09% | 371.4M | 14.53 | CA$1.41 | +3.29% |
Stock Comparison
FSF.TO vs IGAF.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, IGAF.TO has a market cap of 3.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while IGAF.TO trades at CA$15.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IGAF.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to IGAF.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and IGAF.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs TEC.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, TEC.TO has a market cap of 3B. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while TEC.TO trades at CA$44.91.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TEC.TO's P/E ratio is 35.24. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TEC.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to TEC.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs XGD.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, XGD.TO has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while XGD.TO trades at CA$30.83.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XGD.TO's P/E ratio is 20.58. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XGD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to XGD.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs TGED.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, TGED.TO has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while TGED.TO trades at CA$27.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TGED.TO's P/E ratio is 30.40. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TGED.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to TGED.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs DXG.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, DXG.TO has a market cap of 704.2M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while DXG.TO trades at CA$68.27.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DXG.TO's P/E ratio is 30.53. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to DXG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to DXG.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs CIF.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, CIF.TO has a market cap of 608.6M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while CIF.TO trades at CA$51.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CIF.TO's P/E ratio is 13.75. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CIF.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to CIF.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs XHC.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, XHC.TO has a market cap of 522.6M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while XHC.TO trades at CA$63.69.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XHC.TO's P/E ratio is 24.37. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XHC.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to XHC.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs XDG.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, XDG.TO has a market cap of 468.9M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while XDG.TO trades at CA$27.74.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XDG.TO's P/E ratio is 17.36. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XDG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to XDG.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs TQGD.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, TQGD.TO has a market cap of 371.4M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while TQGD.TO trades at CA$20.47.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TQGD.TO's P/E ratio is 14.53. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TQGD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to TQGD.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs CINF.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, CINF.TO has a market cap of 366.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while CINF.TO trades at CA$28.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CINF.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CINF.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and CINF.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs CWW.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, CWW.TO has a market cap of 303.4M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while CWW.TO trades at CA$61.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CWW.TO's P/E ratio is 22.37. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CWW.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to CWW.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs 0P0001ED1S.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, 0P0001ED1S.TO has a market cap of 302.9M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while 0P0001ED1S.TO trades at CA$12.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas 0P0001ED1S.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to 0P0001ED1S.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and 0P0001ED1S.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs ZWG.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, ZWG.TO has a market cap of 260M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while ZWG.TO trades at CA$30.97.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZWG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZWG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to ZWG.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs COW.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, COW.TO has a market cap of 244M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while COW.TO trades at CA$67.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas COW.TO's P/E ratio is 15.63. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to COW.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to COW.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs 0P0001ODDT.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, 0P0001ODDT.TO has a market cap of 226.9M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while 0P0001ODDT.TO trades at CA$23.73.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas 0P0001ODDT.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to 0P0001ODDT.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and 0P0001ODDT.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs CGR.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, CGR.TO has a market cap of 211.9M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while CGR.TO trades at CA$30.57.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CGR.TO's P/E ratio is 27.32. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CGR.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to CGR.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs VMO.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, VMO.TO has a market cap of 201.6M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while VMO.TO trades at CA$67.27.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VMO.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VMO.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to VMO.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs LIFE.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, LIFE.TO has a market cap of 178.3M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while LIFE.TO trades at CA$18.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LIFE.TO's P/E ratio is 25.65. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to LIFE.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to LIFE.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs GDV.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, GDV.TO has a market cap of 176.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while GDV.TO trades at CA$11.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GDV.TO's P/E ratio is 3.61. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to GDV.TO's ROE of +0.36%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to GDV.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs ZGD.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, ZGD.TO has a market cap of 149.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while ZGD.TO trades at CA$158.67.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZGD.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZGD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to ZGD.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs CYH.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, CYH.TO has a market cap of 146M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while CYH.TO trades at CA$22.37.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CYH.TO's P/E ratio is 12.23. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CYH.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to CYH.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs XGI.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, XGI.TO has a market cap of 117.3M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while XGI.TO trades at CA$58.51.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XGI.TO's P/E ratio is 23.21. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XGI.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and XGI.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs CGLO.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, CGLO.TO has a market cap of 106.8M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while CGLO.TO trades at CA$30.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CGLO.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CGLO.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to CGLO.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs XMY.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, XMY.TO has a market cap of 98.9M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while XMY.TO trades at CA$32.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XMY.TO's P/E ratio is 19.55. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XMY.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to XMY.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs PMNT.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, PMNT.TO has a market cap of 98.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while PMNT.TO trades at CA$18.97.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PMNT.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to PMNT.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to PMNT.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs XDGH.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, XDGH.TO has a market cap of 94.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while XDGH.TO trades at CA$27.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XDGH.TO's P/E ratio is 17.30. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XDGH.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to XDGH.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs TGRE.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, TGRE.TO has a market cap of 82.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while TGRE.TO trades at CA$14.86.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TGRE.TO's P/E ratio is 26.17. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TGRE.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to TGRE.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs XCD.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, XCD.TO has a market cap of 64.4M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while XCD.TO trades at CA$58.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XCD.TO's P/E ratio is 19.99. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to XCD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to XCD.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs LONG.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, LONG.TO has a market cap of 61.8M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while LONG.TO trades at CA$34.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LONG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to LONG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and LONG.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs VVO.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, VVO.TO has a market cap of 51.3M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while VVO.TO trades at CA$38.76.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VVO.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VVO.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to VVO.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs ONEQ.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, ONEQ.TO has a market cap of 49.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while ONEQ.TO trades at CA$44.31.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ONEQ.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ONEQ.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and ONEQ.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs 0P0001NDFE.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, 0P0001NDFE.TO has a market cap of 46M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while 0P0001NDFE.TO trades at CA$13.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas 0P0001NDFE.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to 0P0001NDFE.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and 0P0001NDFE.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs GIQG.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, GIQG.TO has a market cap of 45.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while GIQG.TO trades at CA$30.23.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GIQG.TO's P/E ratio is 34.61. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to GIQG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and GIQG.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs ESGG.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, ESGG.TO has a market cap of 42.4M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while ESGG.TO trades at CA$50.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ESGG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ESGG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and ESGG.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs TGGR.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, TGGR.TO has a market cap of 37.2M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while TGGR.TO trades at CA$27.62.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TGGR.TO's P/E ratio is 25.33. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to TGGR.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to TGGR.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs DXN.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, DXN.TO has a market cap of 26.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while DXN.TO trades at CA$23.21.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DXN.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to DXN.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to DXN.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs ZMT.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, ZMT.TO has a market cap of 22.8M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while ZMT.TO trades at CA$73.27.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ZMT.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to ZMT.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and ZMT.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs VAH.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, VAH.TO has a market cap of 22.3M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while VAH.TO trades at CA$28.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VAH.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VAH.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to VAH.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs HGGG.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, HGGG.TO has a market cap of 21.8M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while HGGG.TO trades at CA$51.86.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HGGG.TO's P/E ratio is 16.30. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HGGG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to HGGG.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs 0P0001N8LS.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, 0P0001N8LS.TO has a market cap of 21.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while 0P0001N8LS.TO trades at CA$37.76.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas 0P0001N8LS.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to 0P0001N8LS.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and 0P0001N8LS.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs CGAA.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, CGAA.TO has a market cap of 21.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while CGAA.TO trades at CA$27.91.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CGAA.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to CGAA.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and CGAA.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs MIVG.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, MIVG.TO has a market cap of 19.9M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while MIVG.TO trades at CA$37.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MIVG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to MIVG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to MIVG.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs PINV.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, PINV.TO has a market cap of 19.4M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while PINV.TO trades at CA$22.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PINV.TO's P/E ratio is 25.84. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to PINV.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and PINV.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs SOL.CN Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, SOL.CN has a market cap of 13.2M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while SOL.CN trades at CA$0.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SOL.CN's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to SOL.CN's ROE of +8.78%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to SOL.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs RWU.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, RWU.TO has a market cap of 12.2M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while RWU.TO trades at CA$20.96.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RWU.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RWU.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and RWU.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs VLQ.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, VLQ.TO has a market cap of 11.6M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while VLQ.TO trades at CA$32.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VLQ.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to VLQ.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and VLQ.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs FLGD.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, FLGD.TO has a market cap of 10.8M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while FLGD.TO trades at CA$29.81.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FLGD.TO's P/E ratio is 16.06. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to FLGD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and FLGD.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs RIG.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, RIG.TO has a market cap of 10.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while RIG.TO trades at CA$18.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RIG.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RIG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and RIG.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs HRA.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, HRA.TO has a market cap of 10.4M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while HRA.TO trades at CA$10.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HRA.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HRA.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to HRA.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs RLD.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, RLD.TO has a market cap of 9.2M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while RLD.TO trades at CA$24.92.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RLD.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RLD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and RLD.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs SHZ.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, SHZ.TO has a market cap of 6.8M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while SHZ.TO trades at CA$7.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SHZ.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to SHZ.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and SHZ.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs EATS.CN Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, EATS.CN has a market cap of 6.6M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while EATS.CN trades at CA$0.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas EATS.CN's P/E ratio is -0.94. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to EATS.CN's ROE of -2.49%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to EATS.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs DFD.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, DFD.TO has a market cap of 5.3M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while DFD.TO trades at CA$21.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DFD.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to DFD.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and DFD.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs HLTH.CN Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, HLTH.CN has a market cap of 3.2M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while HLTH.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HLTH.CN's P/E ratio is -0.17. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HLTH.CN's ROE of -140.65%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and HLTH.CN have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs DFE.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, DFE.TO has a market cap of 2.7M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while DFE.TO trades at CA$17.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DFE.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to DFE.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and DFE.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs RLE.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, RLE.TO has a market cap of 2.6M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while RLE.TO trades at CA$28.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RLE.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to RLE.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO is less volatile compared to RLE.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO vs HGM.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, HGM.TO has a market cap of 1M. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while HGM.TO trades at CA$11.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HGM.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to HGM.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and HGM.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs PXG.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, PXG.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while PXG.TO trades at CA$28.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PXG.TO's P/E ratio is 11.11. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to PXG.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and PXG.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).
FSF.TO vs PSY.TO Comparison
FSF.TO plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FSF.TO stands at 563.6M. In comparison, PSY.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FSF.TO is priced at CA$32.41, while PSY.TO trades at CA$30.82.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FSF.TO currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PSY.TO's P/E ratio is 12.25. In terms of profitability, FSF.TO's ROE is +0.00%, compared to PSY.TO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FSF.TO and PSY.TO have similar daily volatility (0.00).