The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (GT) Stock Competitors & Peer Comparison
See (GT) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Auto - Parts Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GT | $6.21 | +7.07% | 1.7B | -0.81 | -$7.25 | N/A |
| APTV-PA | $108.66 | +0.15% | 29.4B | 92.08 | $1.18 | N/A |
| MGA | $66.03 | -0.96% | 18.4B | 27.89 | $2.37 | +3.06% |
| BWA | $74.13 | -2.28% | 15B | 42.60 | $1.72 | +0.95% |
| MOD | $266.42 | -3.20% | 14.7B | 122.01 | $2.28 | N/A |
| APTV | $67.78 | -2.19% | 14.5B | 40.76 | $1.68 | N/A |
| ALSN | $116.55 | +0.92% | 9.8B | 18.34 | $6.43 | +0.98% |
| ALV | $128.31 | +0.06% | 9.4B | 13.59 | $9.28 | +2.79% |
| MBLY | $9.34 | -3.66% | 7.6B | -1.85 | -$5.03 | N/A |
| LEA | $144.19 | -0.47% | 7.1B | 14.23 | $9.99 | +2.19% |
Stock Comparison
GT vs APTV-PA Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, APTV-PA has a market cap of 29.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas APTV-PA's P/E ratio is 92.08. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to APTV-PA's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to APTV-PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check APTV-PA's competition here
GT vs MGA Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, MGA has a market cap of 18.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while MGA trades at $66.03.
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 -0.81, whereas MGA's P/E ratio is 27.89. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to MGA's ROE of +0.05%. 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 vs BWA Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, BWA has a market cap of 15B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while BWA trades at $74.13.
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 -0.81, whereas BWA's P/E ratio is 42.60. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to BWA's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to BWA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check BWA's competition here
GT vs MOD Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, MOD has a market cap of 14.7B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while MOD trades at $266.42.
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 -0.81, whereas MOD's P/E ratio is 122.01. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to MOD's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to MOD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MOD's competition here
GT vs APTV Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, APTV has a market cap of 14.5B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while APTV trades at $67.78.
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 -0.81, whereas APTV's P/E ratio is 40.76. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to APTV's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to APTV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check APTV's competition here
GT vs ALSN Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, ALSN has a market cap of 9.8B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while ALSN trades at $116.55.
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 -0.81, whereas ALSN's P/E ratio is 18.34. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to ALSN's ROE of +0.29%. 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 vs ALV Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, ALV has a market cap of 9.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while ALV trades at $128.31.
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 -0.81, whereas ALV's P/E ratio is 13.59. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to ALV's ROE of +0.28%. 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 vs MBLY Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, MBLY has a market cap of 7.6B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while MBLY trades at $9.34.
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 -0.81, whereas MBLY's P/E ratio is -1.85. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to MBLY's ROE of -0.37%. 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 vs LEA Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, LEA has a market cap of 7.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while LEA trades at $144.19.
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 -0.81, whereas LEA's P/E ratio is 14.23. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to LEA's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to LEA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check LEA's competition here
GT vs LKQ Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, LKQ has a market cap of 6.5B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while LKQ trades at $26.11.
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 -0.81, whereas LKQ's P/E ratio is 12.68. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to LKQ's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to LKQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check LKQ's competition here
GT vs GTX Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, GTX has a market cap of 6.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while GTX trades at $33.53.
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 -0.81, whereas GTX's P/E ratio is 19.19. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to GTX's ROE of -0.43%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to GTX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check GTX's competition here
GT vs GNTX Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, GNTX has a market cap of 5.3B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while GNTX trades at $25.71.
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 -0.81, whereas GNTX's P/E ratio is 13.96. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to GNTX's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to GNTX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check GNTX's competition here
GT vs BC-PA Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, BC-PA has a market cap of 4.8B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas BC-PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs DAN Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, DAN has a market cap of 4.6B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while DAN trades at $30.15.
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 -0.81, whereas DAN's P/E ratio is -67.69. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to DAN's ROE of -0.13%. 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 vs QS Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, QS has a market cap of 4.5B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while QS trades at $7.04.
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 -0.81, whereas QS's P/E ratio is -10.76. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to QS's ROE of -0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to QS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check QS's competition here
GT vs DORM Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, DORM has a market cap of 3.8B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while DORM trades at $128.34.
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 -0.81, whereas DORM's P/E ratio is 20.64. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to DORM's ROE of +0.13%. 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 vs BC-PB Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, BC-PB has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas BC-PB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs VGNT Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, VGNT has a market cap of 3.5B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while VGNT trades at $47.56.
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 -0.81, whereas VGNT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to VGNT's ROE of +0.34%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to VGNT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check VGNT's competition here
GT vs VC Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, VC has a market cap of 3.2B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while VC trades at $119.42.
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 -0.81, whereas VC's P/E ratio is 19.96. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to VC's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to VC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check VC's competition here
GT vs PHIN Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, PHIN has a market cap of 3B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while PHIN trades at $84.27.
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 -0.81, whereas PHIN's P/E ratio is 22.83. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to PHIN's ROE of +0.09%. 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 vs HSAI Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, HSAI has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while HSAI trades at $17.89.
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 -0.81, whereas HSAI's P/E ratio is 38.42. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to HSAI's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to HSAI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check HSAI's competition here
GT vs BGSI Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, BGSI has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while BGSI trades at $94.55.
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 -0.81, whereas BGSI's P/E ratio is 152.53. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to BGSI's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to BGSI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check BGSI's competition here
GT vs ADNT Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, ADNT has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while ADNT trades at $22.88.
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 -0.81, whereas ADNT's P/E ratio is 33.80. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to ADNT's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to ADNT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check ADNT's competition here
GT vs AEVA Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, AEVA has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while AEVA trades at $23.87.
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 -0.81, whereas AEVA's P/E ratio is -8.98. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to AEVA's ROE of +6.92%. 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 vs XPEL Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, XPEL has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while XPEL trades at $46.12.
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 -0.81, whereas XPEL's P/E ratio is 23.99. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs HYLN Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, HYLN has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while HYLN trades at $7.32.
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 -0.81, whereas HYLN's P/E ratio is -21.13. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs THRM Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, THRM has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while THRM trades at $36.15.
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 -0.81, whereas THRM's P/E ratio is 49.82. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to THRM's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to THRM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check THRM's competition here
GT vs PLOW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, PLOW has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while PLOW trades at $47.30.
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 -0.81, whereas PLOW's P/E ratio is 20.74. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to PLOW's ROE of +0.00%. 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 vs AXL Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, AXL has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas AXL's P/E ratio is 23.30. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to AXL's ROE of -0.14%. 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 vs SMP Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, SMP has a market cap of 875.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while SMP trades at $39.49.
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 -0.81, whereas SMP's P/E ratio is 10.57. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to SMP's ROE of +0.07%. 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 vs FOXF Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, FOXF has a market cap of 760.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while FOXF trades at $18.14.
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 -0.81, whereas FOXF's P/E ratio is -2.53. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to FOXF's ROE of -0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to FOXF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check FOXF's competition here
GT vs DCH Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, DCH has a market cap of 745.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while DCH trades at $6.27.
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 -0.81, whereas DCH's P/E ratio is -8.40. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to DCH's ROE of -0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to DCH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check DCH's competition here
GT vs GTXAP Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, GTXAP has a market cap of 557.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas GTXAP's P/E ratio is 4.44. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to GTXAP's ROE of -0.43%. 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 vs MLR Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, MLR has a market cap of 556.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while MLR trades at $49.36.
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 -0.81, whereas MLR's P/E ratio is 36.45. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to MLR's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to MLR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MLR's competition here
GT vs CPS Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, CPS has a market cap of 522.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while CPS trades at $29.39.
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 -0.81, whereas CPS's P/E ratio is -13.56. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to CPS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to CPS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check CPS's competition here
GT vs ALLG Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, ALLG has a market cap of 496.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas ALLG's P/E ratio is -3.96. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs MNRO Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, MNRO has a market cap of 440.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while MNRO trades at $15.91.
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 -0.81, whereas MNRO's P/E ratio is 488.67. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to MNRO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to MNRO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MNRO's competition here
GT vs ECX Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, ECX has a market cap of 415.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while ECX trades at $1.23.
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 -0.81, whereas ECX's P/E ratio is -8.27. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to ECX's ROE of +0.05%. 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 vs SES Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, SES has a market cap of 393.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while SES trades at $1.08.
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 -0.81, whereas SES's P/E ratio is -4.91. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to SES's ROE of -0.32%. 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 vs STRT Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, STRT has a market cap of 324M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while STRT trades at $80.35.
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 -0.81, whereas STRT's P/E ratio is 12.79. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to STRT's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to STRT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check STRT's competition here
GT vs HLLY Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, HLLY has a market cap of 315.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while HLLY trades at $2.59.
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 -0.81, whereas HLLY's P/E ratio is 13.10. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to HLLY's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to HLLY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check HLLY's competition here
GT vs MPAA Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, MPAA has a market cap of 249.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while MPAA trades at $15.14.
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 -0.81, whereas MPAA's P/E ratio is 21.29. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to MPAA's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to MPAA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check MPAA's competition here
GT vs AEVA-WT Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, AEVA-WT has a market cap of 227.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while AEVA-WT trades at $0.07.
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 -0.81, whereas AEVA-WT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to AEVA-WT's ROE of +6.92%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to AEVA-WT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check AEVA-WT's competition here
GT vs SRI Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, SRI has a market cap of 198.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while SRI trades at $7.78.
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 -0.81, whereas SRI's P/E ratio is -1.78. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to SRI's ROE of -0.53%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to SRI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check SRI's competition here
GT vs CVGI Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, CVGI has a market cap of 187.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while CVGI trades at $5.21.
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 -0.81, whereas CVGI's P/E ratio is -10.53. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to CVGI's ROE of -0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to CVGI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check CVGI's competition here
GT vs XL Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, XL has a market cap of 164.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas XL's P/E ratio is -3.21. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to XL's ROE of -0.11%. 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 vs INVZ Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, INVZ has a market cap of 146.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while INVZ trades at $0.61.
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 -0.81, whereas INVZ's P/E ratio is -1.70. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to INVZ's ROE of -1.02%. 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 vs CAAS Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, CAAS has a market cap of 133.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while CAAS trades at $4.68.
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 -0.81, whereas CAAS's P/E ratio is 3.11. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to CAAS's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to CAAS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check CAAS's competition here
GT vs LIDRW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, LIDRW has a market cap of 81.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while LIDRW trades at $0.02.
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 -0.81, whereas LIDRW's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to LIDRW's ROE of -0.56%. 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 vs LIDR Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, LIDR has a market cap of 80.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while LIDR trades at $1.59.
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 -0.81, whereas LIDR's P/E ratio is -1.45. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to LIDR's ROE of -0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to LIDR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check LIDR's competition here
GT vs KNDI Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, KNDI has a market cap of 61.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while KNDI trades at $0.71.
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 -0.81, whereas KNDI's P/E ratio is -0.66. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to KNDI's ROE of -0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to KNDI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check KNDI's competition here
GT vs SYPR Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, SYPR has a market cap of 60.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while SYPR trades at $2.69.
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 -0.81, whereas SYPR's P/E ratio is -6.24. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to SYPR's ROE of -0.54%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to SYPR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check SYPR's competition here
GT vs GGR Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, GGR has a market cap of 59.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while GGR trades at $3.87.
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 -0.81, whereas GGR's P/E ratio is -0.86. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to GGR's ROE of -0.54%. 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 vs AIIO Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, AIIO has a market cap of 56M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while AIIO trades at $2.68.
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 -0.81, whereas AIIO's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to AIIO's ROE of +1.92%. 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 vs MKDW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, MKDW has a market cap of 36.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while MKDW trades at $8.50.
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 -0.81, whereas MKDW's P/E ratio is -13.17. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to MKDW's ROE of -3.27%. 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 vs WPRT Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, WPRT has a market cap of 31.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while WPRT trades at $1.81.
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 -0.81, whereas WPRT's P/E ratio is -1.06. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to WPRT's ROE of -0.81%. 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 vs ECXWW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, ECXWW has a market cap of 20.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas ECXWW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to ECXWW's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to ECXWW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check ECXWW's competition here
GT vs NCNC Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, NCNC has a market cap of 20.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas NCNC's P/E ratio is -0.70. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs NCNCW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, NCNCW has a market cap of 20.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas NCNCW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs AMV Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, AMV has a market cap of 17.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas AMV's P/E ratio is -0.06. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to AMV's ROE of +2.46%. 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 vs SAG Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, SAG has a market cap of 10.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas SAG's P/E ratio is 6.73. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs SUP Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, SUP has a market cap of 9.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas SUP's P/E ratio is -0.08. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs FRSX Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, FRSX has a market cap of 7.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while FRSX trades at $1.51.
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 -0.81, whereas FRSX's P/E ratio is -0.15. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to FRSX's ROE of -1.42%. 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 vs INEO Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, INEO has a market cap of 6M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while INEO trades at $0.68.
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 -0.81, whereas INEO's P/E ratio is -20.34. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to INEO's ROE of -0.06%. 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 vs HLLY-WT Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, HLLY-WT has a market cap of 3.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while HLLY-WT 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 -0.81, whereas HLLY-WT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to HLLY-WT's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to HLLY-WT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check HLLY-WT's competition here
GT vs WKSP Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, WKSP has a market cap of 3.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while WKSP trades at $0.65.
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 -0.81, whereas WKSP's P/E ratio is -0.24. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to WKSP's ROE of -1.03%. 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 vs UFAB Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, UFAB has a market cap of 2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas UFAB's P/E ratio is -0.08. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs INVZW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, INVZW has a market cap of 1.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas INVZW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to INVZW's ROE of -1.02%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to INVZW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check INVZW's competition here
GT vs MKDWW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, MKDWW has a market cap of 1.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas MKDWW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to MKDWW's ROE of -3.27%. 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 vs CREV Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, CREV has a market cap of 775.2K. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas CREV's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs WKSPW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, WKSPW has a market cap of 575.3K. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas WKSPW's P/E ratio is -0.05. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to WKSPW's ROE of -1.03%. 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 vs GGROW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, GGROW has a market cap of 121.1K. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas GGROW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to GGROW's ROE of -0.54%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to GGROW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check GGROW's competition here
GT vs HYZNW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, HYZNW has a market cap of 16.3K. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas HYZNW's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs CREVW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, CREVW has a market cap of 6.6K. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas CREVW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs HZN Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, HZN has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas HZN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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
GT vs MTOR Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, MTOR has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas MTOR's P/E ratio is 11.97. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs ACW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, ACW has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while ACW trades at $2.58.
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 -0.81, whereas ACW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to ACW's ROE of -0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to ACW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check ACW's competition here
GT vs VNE Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, VNE has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas VNE's P/E ratio is -10.74. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs GTPPP Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, GTPPP has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while GTPPP trades at $75.28.
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 -0.81, whereas GTPPP's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to GTPPP's ROE of -0.58%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is more volatile compared to GTPPP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check GTPPP's competition here
GT vs RMO Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, RMO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, 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 -0.81, whereas RMO's P/E ratio is -0.29. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, 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 vs QTWW Comparison June 2026
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 1.7B. In comparison, QTWW has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GT is priced at $6.21, while QTWW 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 -0.81, whereas QTWW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GT's ROE is -0.58%, compared to QTWW's ROE of -0.74%. Regarding short-term risk, GT is less volatile compared to QTWW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GT.Check QTWW's competition here