The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ORLY has a market cap of 78.9B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while ORLY trades at $94.17.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas ORLY's P/E ratio is 31.48. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to ORLY's ROE of -2.39%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to ORLY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check ORLY's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, AZO has a market cap of 62.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while AZO trades at $3,745.49.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas AZO's P/E ratio is 26.14. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to AZO's ROE of -0.65%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to AZO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check AZO's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, APTV-PA has a market cap of 29.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while APTV-PA trades at $108.66.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas APTV-PA's P/E ratio is 92.08. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to APTV-PA's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to APTV-PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check APTV-PA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MGA has a market cap of 18.3B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while MGA trades at $66.67.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas MGA's P/E ratio is 22.17. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to MGA's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to MGA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MGA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, APTV has a market cap of 17.2B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while APTV trades at $80.46.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas APTV's P/E ratio is 106.07. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to APTV's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to APTV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check APTV's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, BWA has a market cap of 12.6B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while BWA trades at $60.31.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas BWA's P/E ratio is 46.03. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to BWA's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to BWA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check BWA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MOD has a market cap of 11.9B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while MOD trades at $218.54.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas MOD's P/E ratio is 123.69. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to MOD's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to MOD. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MOD's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ALSN has a market cap of 9.9B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while ALSN trades at $117.78.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas ALSN's P/E ratio is 14.59. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to ALSN's ROE of +0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to ALSN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check ALSN's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ALV has a market cap of 9.3B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while ALV trades at $123.15.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas ALV's P/E ratio is 12.89. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to ALV's ROE of +0.30%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to ALV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check ALV's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, LKQ has a market cap of 8.7B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while LKQ trades at $33.52.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas LKQ's P/E ratio is 12.63. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to LKQ's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to LKQ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check LKQ's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MBLY has a market cap of 7.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while MBLY trades at $9.19.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas MBLY's P/E ratio is -18.85. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to MBLY's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to MBLY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MBLY's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, LEA has a market cap of 7.2B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while LEA trades at $134.01.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas LEA's P/E ratio is 16.54. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to LEA's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to LEA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check LEA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, GNTX has a market cap of 5.2B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while GNTX trades at $23.97.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas GNTX's P/E ratio is 13.78. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to GNTX's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to GNTX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check GNTX's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, DAN has a market cap of 4.8B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while DAN trades at $34.14.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas DAN's P/E ratio is 77.86. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to DAN's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to DAN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check DAN's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, BC-PA has a market cap of 4.8B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while BC-PA trades at $74.17.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas BC-PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to BC-PA's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to BC-PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check BC-PA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, TMH has a market cap of 4.7B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while TMH trades at $64.24.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas TMH's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to TMH's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to TMH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check TMH's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, QS has a market cap of 4.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while QS trades at $7.17.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas QS's P/E ratio is -9.05. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to QS's ROE of -0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to QS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check QS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, DORM has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while DORM trades at $127.73.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas DORM's P/E ratio is 16.15. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to DORM's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to DORM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check DORM's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, GTX has a market cap of 3.8B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while GTX trades at $19.27.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas GTX's P/E ratio is 12.12. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to GTX's ROE of -0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to GTX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check GTX's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, BC-PB has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while BC-PB trades at $24.99.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas BC-PB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to BC-PB's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to BC-PB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check BC-PB's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, HSAI has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while HSAI trades at $28.12.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas HSAI's P/E ratio is 59.06. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to HSAI's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to HSAI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check HSAI's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, PHIN has a market cap of 2.9B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while PHIN trades at $75.30.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas PHIN's P/E ratio is 23.44. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to PHIN's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to PHIN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check PHIN's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, VC has a market cap of 2.5B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while VC trades at $93.91.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas VC's P/E ratio is 8.33. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to VC's ROE of +0.32%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to VC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check VC's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ADNT has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while ADNT trades at $25.02.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas ADNT's P/E ratio is -6.77. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to ADNT's ROE of -0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to ADNT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check ADNT's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, XPEL has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while XPEL trades at $50.16.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas XPEL's P/E ratio is 31.41. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to XPEL's ROE of +0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to XPEL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check XPEL's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, THRM has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while THRM trades at $31.31.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas THRM's P/E ratio is 34.45. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to THRM's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to THRM. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check THRM's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, AXL has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while AXL trades at $8.62.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas AXL's P/E ratio is 23.30. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to AXL's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to AXL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check AXL's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, PLOW has a market cap of 985.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while PLOW trades at $42.00.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas PLOW's P/E ratio is 24.59. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to PLOW's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to PLOW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check PLOW's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, SMP has a market cap of 981.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while SMP trades at $44.18.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas SMP's P/E ratio is 14.49. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to SMP's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to SMP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check SMP's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, FOXF has a market cap of 824.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while FOXF trades at $19.19.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas FOXF's P/E ratio is -3.20. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to FOXF's ROE of -0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to FOXF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check FOXF's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, AEVA has a market cap of 753.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while AEVA trades at $12.87.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas AEVA's P/E ratio is -4.45. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to AEVA's ROE of -7.51%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to AEVA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check AEVA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, CPS has a market cap of 696.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while CPS trades at $39.32.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas CPS's P/E ratio is -171.70. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to CPS's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to CPS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check CPS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MNRO has a market cap of 684.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while MNRO trades at $22.59.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas MNRO's P/E ratio is -47.48. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to MNRO's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to MNRO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MNRO's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, SES has a market cap of 598.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while SES trades at $1.77.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas SES's P/E ratio is -5.95. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to SES's ROE of -0.35%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to SES. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check SES's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ECX has a market cap of 560.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while ECX trades at $1.56.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas ECX's P/E ratio is -4.03. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to ECX's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to ECX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check ECX's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, GTXAP has a market cap of 557.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while GTXAP trades at $8.60.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas GTXAP's P/E ratio is 4.44. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to GTXAP's ROE of -0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to GTXAP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check GTXAP's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, HLLY has a market cap of 511.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while HLLY trades at $4.24.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas HLLY's P/E ratio is -20.40. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to HLLY's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to HLLY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check HLLY's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MLR has a market cap of 498M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while MLR trades at $42.84.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas MLR's P/E ratio is 16.84. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to MLR's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to MLR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MLR's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ALLG has a market cap of 496.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while ALLG trades at $1.82.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas ALLG's P/E ratio is -3.96. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to ALLG's ROE of +4.17%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to ALLG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check ALLG's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, STRT has a market cap of 375.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while STRT trades at $90.33.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas STRT's P/E ratio is 13.61. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to STRT's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to STRT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check STRT's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, HYLN has a market cap of 355.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while HYLN trades at $2.06.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas HYLN's P/E ratio is -5.94. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to HYLN's ROE of -0.26%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to HYLN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check HYLN's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, SRI has a market cap of 237.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while SRI trades at $8.46.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas SRI's P/E ratio is -7.37. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to SRI's ROE of -0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to SRI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check SRI's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MPAA has a market cap of 208.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while MPAA trades at $10.58.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas MPAA's P/E ratio is 118.22. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to MPAA's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to MPAA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MPAA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, INVZ has a market cap of 196.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while INVZ trades at $0.95.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas INVZ's P/E ratio is -2.69. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to INVZ's ROE of -0.71%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to INVZ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check INVZ's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, XL has a market cap of 164.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while XL trades at $1.14.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas XL's P/E ratio is -3.21. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to XL's ROE of -0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to XL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check XL's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, CAAS has a market cap of 132.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while CAAS trades at $4.41.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas CAAS's P/E ratio is 3.95. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to CAAS's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to CAAS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check CAAS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, KNDI has a market cap of 90.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while KNDI trades at $1.07.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas KNDI's P/E ratio is -1.75. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to KNDI's ROE of -0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to KNDI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check KNDI's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, LIDR has a market cap of 74.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while LIDR trades at $1.75.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas LIDR's P/E ratio is -0.71. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to LIDR's ROE of -1.17%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to LIDR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check LIDR's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, SYPR has a market cap of 71.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while SYPR trades at $3.13.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas SYPR's P/E ratio is -28.18. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to SYPR's ROE of -0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to SYPR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check SYPR's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, CVGI has a market cap of 63.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while CVGI trades at $1.74.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas CVGI's P/E ratio is -1.18. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to CVGI's ROE of -0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to CVGI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check CVGI's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, GGR has a market cap of 44.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while GGR trades at $2.93.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas GGR's P/E ratio is -0.55. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to GGR's ROE of -0.59%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to GGR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check GGR's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, WPRT has a market cap of 35.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while WPRT trades at $2.09.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas WPRT's P/E ratio is -1.42. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to WPRT's ROE of -0.52%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to WPRT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check WPRT's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, AIIO has a market cap of 32.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while AIIO trades at $0.12.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas AIIO's P/E ratio is -0.23. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to AIIO's ROE of -160.20%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to AIIO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check AIIO's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, NCNC has a market cap of 20.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while NCNC trades at $0.10.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas NCNC's P/E ratio is -0.70. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to NCNC's ROE of +3.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to NCNC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check NCNC's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, NCNCW has a market cap of 20.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while NCNCW trades at $0.01.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas NCNCW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to NCNCW's ROE of +3.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to NCNCW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check NCNCW's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, AMV has a market cap of 17.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while AMV trades at $0.50.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas AMV's P/E ratio is -0.06. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to AMV's ROE of +1.57%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to AMV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check AMV's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, HLLY-WT has a market cap of 17.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while HLLY-WT trades at $0.15.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas HLLY-WT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to HLLY-WT's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to HLLY-WT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check HLLY-WT's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ECXWW has a market cap of 17.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while ECXWW trades at $0.06.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas ECXWW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to ECXWW's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to ECXWW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check ECXWW's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, FRSX has a market cap of 16.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while FRSX trades at $0.86.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas FRSX's P/E ratio is -0.22. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to FRSX's ROE of -1.83%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to FRSX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check FRSX's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MKDW has a market cap of 10.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while MKDW trades at $2.14.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas MKDW's P/E ratio is -0.83. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to MKDW's ROE of +1.39%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to MKDW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MKDW's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, SAG has a market cap of 10.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while SAG trades at $1.01.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas SAG's P/E ratio is 6.73. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to SAG's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to SAG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check SAG's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, SUP has a market cap of 9.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while SUP trades at $0.32.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas SUP's P/E ratio is -0.08. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to SUP's ROE of +1.78%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to SUP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check SUP's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, WKSP has a market cap of 6.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while WKSP trades at $1.41.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas WKSP's P/E ratio is -0.37. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to WKSP's ROE of -0.93%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to WKSP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check WKSP's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, INEO has a market cap of 5.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while INEO trades at $0.48.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas INEO's P/E ratio is -5.89. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to INEO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to INEO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check INEO's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, LIDRW has a market cap of 3.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while LIDRW trades at $0.08.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas LIDRW's P/E ratio is -0.02. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to LIDRW's ROE of -1.17%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to LIDRW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check LIDRW's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, UFAB has a market cap of 2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while UFAB trades at $0.17.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas UFAB's P/E ratio is -0.08. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to UFAB's ROE of -0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to UFAB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check UFAB's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, INVZW has a market cap of 1.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while INVZW trades at $0.01.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas INVZW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to INVZW's ROE of -0.71%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to INVZW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check INVZW's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MKDWW has a market cap of 1.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while MKDWW trades at $0.01.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas MKDWW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to MKDWW's ROE of +1.39%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to MKDWW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MKDWW's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, CREV has a market cap of 775.2K. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while CREV trades at $0.40.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas CREV's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to CREV's ROE of +2.58%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to CREV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check CREV's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, WKSPW has a market cap of 575.3K. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while WKSPW trades at $0.03.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas WKSPW's P/E ratio is -0.05. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to WKSPW's ROE of -0.93%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to WKSPW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check WKSPW's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, GGROW has a market cap of 115.1K. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while GGROW trades at $0.01.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas GGROW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to GGROW's ROE of -0.59%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to GGROW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check GGROW's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, HYZNW has a market cap of 16.3K. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while HYZNW trades at $0.00.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas HYZNW's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to HYZNW's ROE of -0.84%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to HYZNW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check HYZNW's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, CREVW has a market cap of 6.6K. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while CREVW trades at $0.00.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas CREVW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to CREVW's ROE of +2.58%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to CREVW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check CREVW's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, RMO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while RMO trades at $0.35.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas RMO's P/E ratio is -0.29. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to RMO's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to RMO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check RMO's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, VNE has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while VNE trades at $36.95.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas VNE's P/E ratio is -10.74. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to VNE's ROE of -0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to VNE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check VNE's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MTOR has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while MTOR trades at $36.50.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas MTOR's P/E ratio is 11.97. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to MTOR's ROE of +0.38%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to MTOR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MTOR's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, GT stands at 2.6B. In comparison, HZN has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $8.77, while HZN trades at $1.76.

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

GT currently has a P/E ratio of -1.49, whereas HZN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.42%, compared to HZN's ROE of +1.26%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to HZN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check HZN's competition here