Green Thumb Industries Inc.
Green Thumb Industries Inc. GTII.CN Peers
See (GTII.CN) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTII.CN | CA$7.17 | +2.43% | 1.7B | 24.72 | CA$0.29 | N/A |
| CURA.CN | CA$5.22 | +9.21% | 4.1B | -6.07 | -CA$0.86 | N/A |
| BHC.TO | CA$6.53 | +3.00% | 2.4B | -38.41 | -CA$0.17 | N/A |
| VRNO.CN | CA$6.32 | +6.76% | 2.2B | -5.40 | -CA$1.17 | N/A |
| CRON.TO | CA$2.72 | +4.21% | 1B | 14.32 | CA$0.19 | N/A |
| TRUL.CN | CA$5.40 | +0.37% | 1B | -5.00 | -CA$1.08 | N/A |
| CURA.TO | CA$1.22 | +3.39% | 877.7M | -2.54 | -CA$0.48 | N/A |
| TER.CN | CA$2.38 | -0.42% | 804.8M | -1.33 | -CA$1.79 | N/A |
| DHT-UN.TO | CA$12.96 | -0.23% | 729.8M | 324.00 | CA$0.04 | +3.90% |
| GUD.TO | CA$6.00 | -0.33% | 597.8M | 60.00 | CA$0.10 | N/A |
Stock Comparison
GTII.CN vs CURA.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CURA.CN has a market cap of 4.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CURA.CN trades at CA$5.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CURA.CN's P/E ratio is -6.07. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CURA.CN's ROE of -0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to CURA.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs BHC.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, BHC.TO has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while BHC.TO trades at CA$6.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas BHC.TO's P/E ratio is -38.41. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to BHC.TO's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to BHC.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs VRNO.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, VRNO.CN has a market cap of 2.2B. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while VRNO.CN trades at CA$6.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas VRNO.CN's P/E ratio is -5.40. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to VRNO.CN's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to VRNO.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CRON.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CRON.TO has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CRON.TO trades at CA$2.72.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CRON.TO's P/E ratio is 14.32. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CRON.TO's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to CRON.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs TRUL.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, TRUL.CN has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while TRUL.CN trades at CA$5.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas TRUL.CN's P/E ratio is -5.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to TRUL.CN's ROE of -0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to TRUL.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CURA.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CURA.TO has a market cap of 877.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CURA.TO trades at CA$1.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CURA.TO's P/E ratio is -2.54. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CURA.TO's ROE of -0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to CURA.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs TER.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, TER.CN has a market cap of 804.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while TER.CN trades at CA$2.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas TER.CN's P/E ratio is -1.33. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to TER.CN's ROE of -0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to TER.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs DHT-UN.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, DHT-UN.TO has a market cap of 729.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while DHT-UN.TO trades at CA$12.96.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas DHT-UN.TO's P/E ratio is 324.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to DHT-UN.TO's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to DHT-UN.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs GUD.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, GUD.TO has a market cap of 597.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while GUD.TO trades at CA$6.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas GUD.TO's P/E ratio is 60.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to GUD.TO's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to GUD.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs TLRY.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, TLRY.TO has a market cap of 564M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while TLRY.TO trades at CA$0.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas TLRY.TO's P/E ratio is -0.36. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to TLRY.TO's ROE of -0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to TLRY.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs DHT-U.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, DHT-U.TO has a market cap of 512.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while DHT-U.TO trades at CA$9.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas DHT-U.TO's P/E ratio is 303.33. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to DHT-U.TO's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to DHT-U.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs WEED.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, WEED.TO has a market cap of 455.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while WEED.TO trades at CA$2.31.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas WEED.TO's P/E ratio is -0.39. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to WEED.TO's ROE of -0.88%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to WEED.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs ACB.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, ACB.TO has a market cap of 428.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while ACB.TO trades at CA$7.81.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas ACB.TO's P/E ratio is 28.93. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to ACB.TO's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to ACB.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CPH.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CPH.TO has a market cap of 339.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CPH.TO trades at CA$13.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CPH.TO's P/E ratio is 27.04. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CPH.TO's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to CPH.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs VRNO.NE Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, VRNO.NE has a market cap of 255.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while VRNO.NE trades at CA$0.71.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas VRNO.NE's P/E ratio is -0.52. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to VRNO.NE's ROE of -0.32%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to VRNO.NE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CL.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CL.CN has a market cap of 253.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CL.CN trades at CA$0.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CL.CN's P/E ratio is -2.50. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CL.CN's ROE of -0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to CL.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs OGI.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, OGI.TO has a market cap of 248.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while OGI.TO trades at CA$1.86.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas OGI.TO's P/E ratio is 10.31. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to OGI.TO's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to OGI.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CCHW.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CCHW.CN has a market cap of 228.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CCHW.CN trades at CA$0.56.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CCHW.CN's P/E ratio is -0.41. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CCHW.CN's ROE of -1.08%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to CCHW.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs TH.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, TH.TO has a market cap of 162.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while TH.TO trades at CA$3.54.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas TH.TO's P/E ratio is -35.40. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to TH.TO's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to TH.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CRDL.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CRDL.TO has a market cap of 158.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CRDL.TO trades at CA$1.92.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CRDL.TO's P/E ratio is -4.27. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CRDL.TO's ROE of -2.08%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to CRDL.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs HLS.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, HLS.TO has a market cap of 155.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while HLS.TO trades at CA$4.92.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas HLS.TO's P/E ratio is -6.31. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to HLS.TO's ROE of -0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to HLS.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs BHSC.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, BHSC.CN has a market cap of 137.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while BHSC.CN trades at CA$7.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas BHSC.CN's P/E ratio is -4.37. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to BHSC.CN's ROE of -5.75%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to BHSC.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs GRIN.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, GRIN.CN has a market cap of 119M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while GRIN.CN trades at CA$0.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas GRIN.CN's P/E ratio is -6.86. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to GRIN.CN's ROE of -0.89%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to GRIN.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs TSND.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, TSND.TO has a market cap of 111.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while TSND.TO trades at CA$0.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas TSND.TO's P/E ratio is 37.50. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to TSND.TO's ROE of -0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to TSND.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs XLY.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, XLY.TO has a market cap of 105.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while XLY.TO trades at CA$0.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas XLY.TO's P/E ratio is 2.67. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to XLY.TO's ROE of -0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to XLY.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs MDP.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, MDP.TO has a market cap of 91.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while MDP.TO trades at CA$2.84.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas MDP.TO's P/E ratio is 14.20. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to MDP.TO's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to MDP.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs GDNS.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, GDNS.CN has a market cap of 91M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while GDNS.CN trades at CA$0.63.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas GDNS.CN's P/E ratio is -2.74. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to GDNS.CN's ROE of -1.54%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to GDNS.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs PLTH.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, PLTH.CN has a market cap of 89.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while PLTH.CN trades at CA$0.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas PLTH.CN's P/E ratio is -1.45. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to PLTH.CN's ROE of -0.36%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to PLTH.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs JUSH.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, JUSH.CN has a market cap of 80.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while JUSH.CN trades at CA$0.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas JUSH.CN's P/E ratio is -1.21. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to JUSH.CN's ROE of +1.06%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to JUSH.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs BNXT.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, BNXT.CN has a market cap of 62.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while BNXT.CN trades at CA$0.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas BNXT.CN's P/E ratio is -7.86. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to BNXT.CN's ROE of +1.04%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to BNXT.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs TGOD.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, TGOD.CN has a market cap of 62.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while TGOD.CN trades at CA$0.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas TGOD.CN's P/E ratio is -3.28. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to TGOD.CN's ROE of -0.90%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to TGOD.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs STEM.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, STEM.CN has a market cap of 53.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while STEM.CN trades at CA$0.31.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas STEM.CN's P/E ratio is -0.11. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to STEM.CN's ROE of -2.75%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to STEM.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs INNO.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, INNO.CN has a market cap of 49.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while INNO.CN trades at CA$0.17.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas INNO.CN's P/E ratio is -17.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to INNO.CN's ROE of -0.38%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to INNO.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs MRMD.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, MRMD.CN has a market cap of 38.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while MRMD.CN trades at CA$0.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas MRMD.CN's P/E ratio is -2.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to MRMD.CN's ROE of -0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to MRMD.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs HEXO.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, HEXO.TO has a market cap of 38.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while HEXO.TO trades at CA$0.88.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas HEXO.TO's P/E ratio is -0.26. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to HEXO.TO's ROE of -2.06%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to HEXO.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CHM.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CHM.CN has a market cap of 37.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CHM.CN trades at CA$0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CHM.CN's P/E ratio is -5.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CHM.CN's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to CHM.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CBST.NE Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CBST.NE has a market cap of 36M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CBST.NE trades at CA$0.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CBST.NE's P/E ratio is -0.25. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CBST.NE's ROE of +10.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to CBST.NE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs IAN.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, IAN.CN has a market cap of 33.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while IAN.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas IAN.CN's P/E ratio is -0.50. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to IAN.CN's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to IAN.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs VEXT.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, VEXT.CN has a market cap of 33.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while VEXT.CN trades at CA$0.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas VEXT.CN's P/E ratio is -1.62. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to VEXT.CN's ROE of -0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to VEXT.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs LABS.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, LABS.TO has a market cap of 33.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while LABS.TO trades at CA$0.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas LABS.TO's P/E ratio is -4.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to LABS.TO's ROE of -0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to LABS.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs AVCN.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, AVCN.TO has a market cap of 31.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while AVCN.TO trades at CA$0.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas AVCN.TO's P/E ratio is -9.33. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to AVCN.TO's ROE of -3.82%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to AVCN.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs EPIC.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, EPIC.CN has a market cap of 29.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while EPIC.CN trades at CA$0.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas EPIC.CN's P/E ratio is 12.50. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to EPIC.CN's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to EPIC.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs MMEN.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, MMEN.CN has a market cap of 27.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while MMEN.CN trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas MMEN.CN's P/E ratio is -0.13. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to MMEN.CN's ROE of -0.96%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to MMEN.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs GWAY.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, GWAY.CN has a market cap of 26.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while GWAY.CN trades at CA$0.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas GWAY.CN's P/E ratio is -6.67. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to GWAY.CN's ROE of -0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to GWAY.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CXXI.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CXXI.CN has a market cap of 24M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CXXI.CN trades at CA$0.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CXXI.CN's P/E ratio is -5.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CXXI.CN's ROE of -0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to CXXI.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs YOUR.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, YOUR.CN has a market cap of 22.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while YOUR.CN trades at CA$0.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas YOUR.CN's P/E ratio is 8.50. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to YOUR.CN's ROE of -1.18%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to YOUR.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs VIN.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, VIN.CN has a market cap of 20.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while VIN.CN trades at CA$0.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas VIN.CN's P/E ratio is -0.67. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to VIN.CN's ROE of -0.79%. Regarding short-term risk, Volatility data is not available for a full comparison. GTII.CN has daily volatility of 5.20 and VIN.CN has daily volatility of N/A.
GTII.CN vs CWEB.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CWEB.TO has a market cap of 19.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CWEB.TO trades at CA$0.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CWEB.TO's P/E ratio is -0.57. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CWEB.TO's ROE of -0.85%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to CWEB.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs AYR-A.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, AYR-A.CN has a market cap of 18.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while AYR-A.CN trades at CA$0.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas AYR-A.CN's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to AYR-A.CN's ROE of -0.68%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to AYR-A.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs RWB.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, RWB.CN has a market cap of 16.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while RWB.CN trades at CA$0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas RWB.CN's P/E ratio is -0.13. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to RWB.CN's ROE of +0.87%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to RWB.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs IMCC.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, IMCC.CN has a market cap of 15.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while IMCC.CN trades at CA$5.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas IMCC.CN's P/E ratio is -2.68. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to IMCC.CN's ROE of -1.52%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to IMCC.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs MRV.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, MRV.TO has a market cap of 15.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while MRV.TO trades at CA$1.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas MRV.TO's P/E ratio is -19.29. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to MRV.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to MRV.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs EXM.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, EXM.CN has a market cap of 15.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while EXM.CN trades at CA$0.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas EXM.CN's P/E ratio is -0.91. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to EXM.CN's ROE of -18.63%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to EXM.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CHAL.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CHAL.CN has a market cap of 14.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CHAL.CN trades at CA$0.23.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CHAL.CN's P/E ratio is -2.25. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CHAL.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to CHAL.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs TRIP.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, TRIP.CN has a market cap of 14M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while TRIP.CN trades at CA$0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas TRIP.CN's P/E ratio is -1.75. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to TRIP.CN's ROE of -0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to TRIP.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs RIV.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, RIV.CN has a market cap of 13.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while RIV.CN trades at CA$0.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas RIV.CN's P/E ratio is -0.21. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to RIV.CN's ROE of -1.43%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to RIV.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs RVV.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, RVV.CN has a market cap of 12.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while RVV.CN trades at CA$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas RVV.CN's P/E ratio is -3.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to RVV.CN's ROE of -0.70%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to RVV.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs ORI.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, ORI.CN has a market cap of 11.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while ORI.CN trades at CA$0.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas ORI.CN's P/E ratio is -2.11. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to ORI.CN's ROE of +0.51%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to ORI.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CLC.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CLC.CN has a market cap of 11.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CLC.CN trades at CA$0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CLC.CN's P/E ratio is 5.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CLC.CN's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to CLC.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs OILS.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, OILS.CN has a market cap of 10.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while OILS.CN trades at CA$0.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas OILS.CN's P/E ratio is -6.50. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to OILS.CN's ROE of -0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to OILS.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CNFA.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CNFA.CN has a market cap of 9.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CNFA.CN trades at CA$0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CNFA.CN's P/E ratio is -0.83. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CNFA.CN's ROE of -7.84%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to CNFA.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs VIVO.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, VIVO.TO has a market cap of 9.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while VIVO.TO trades at CA$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas VIVO.TO's P/E ratio is -0.16. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to VIVO.TO's ROE of -0.78%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to VIVO.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CTX.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CTX.TO has a market cap of 8.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CTX.TO trades at CA$0.47.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CTX.TO's P/E ratio is -2.94. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CTX.TO's ROE of -0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to CTX.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs PWR.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, PWR.CN has a market cap of 8.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while PWR.CN trades at CA$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas PWR.CN's P/E ratio is -1.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to PWR.CN's ROE of -0.79%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to PWR.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs AH.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, AH.TO has a market cap of 8.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while AH.TO trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas AH.TO's P/E ratio is -0.22. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to AH.TO's ROE of -0.58%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to AH.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs AVNT.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, AVNT.TO has a market cap of 7.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while AVNT.TO trades at CA$0.72.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas AVNT.TO's P/E ratio is -0.35. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to AVNT.TO's ROE of -0.53%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to AVNT.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs AUSA.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, AUSA.CN has a market cap of 7.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while AUSA.CN trades at CA$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas AUSA.CN's P/E ratio is -0.11. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to AUSA.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to AUSA.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs STHZ.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, STHZ.CN has a market cap of 7.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while STHZ.CN trades at CA$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas STHZ.CN's P/E ratio is -0.10. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to STHZ.CN's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to STHZ.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs MOJO.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, MOJO.CN has a market cap of 7.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while MOJO.CN trades at CA$0.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas MOJO.CN's P/E ratio is -5.36. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to MOJO.CN's ROE of -11.49%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to MOJO.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs BBM.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, BBM.CN has a market cap of 7.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while BBM.CN trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas BBM.CN's P/E ratio is -1.50. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to BBM.CN's ROE of -0.87%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to BBM.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs SPR.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, SPR.CN has a market cap of 7.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while SPR.CN trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas SPR.CN's P/E ratio is -0.40. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to SPR.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to SPR.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs MVMD.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, MVMD.CN has a market cap of 7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while MVMD.CN trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas MVMD.CN's P/E ratio is -2.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to MVMD.CN's ROE of -0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to MVMD.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CLSH.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CLSH.CN has a market cap of 7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CLSH.CN trades at CA$0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CLSH.CN's P/E ratio is 4.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CLSH.CN's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to CLSH.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CDVA.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CDVA.CN has a market cap of 6.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CDVA.CN trades at CA$0.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CDVA.CN's P/E ratio is -6.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CDVA.CN's ROE of +0.26%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to CDVA.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs SE.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, SE.CN has a market cap of 6.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while SE.CN trades at CA$0.52.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas SE.CN's P/E ratio is 2.48. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to SE.CN's ROE of -0.71%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to SE.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs MYCO.NE Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, MYCO.NE has a market cap of 6.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while MYCO.NE trades at CA$0.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas MYCO.NE's P/E ratio is -0.22. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to MYCO.NE's ROE of +0.94%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to MYCO.NE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs SNN.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, SNN.CN has a market cap of 6.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while SNN.CN trades at CA$0.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas SNN.CN's P/E ratio is -0.15. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to SNN.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to SNN.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs LOBE.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, LOBE.CN has a market cap of 5.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while LOBE.CN trades at CA$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas LOBE.CN's P/E ratio is -0.75. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to LOBE.CN's ROE of +1.67%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to LOBE.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs WLLW.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, WLLW.TO has a market cap of 5.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while WLLW.TO trades at CA$0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas WLLW.TO's P/E ratio is -1.17. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to WLLW.TO's ROE of -21.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to WLLW.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs BCBC.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, BCBC.CN has a market cap of 5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while BCBC.CN trades at CA$0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas BCBC.CN's P/E ratio is -2.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to BCBC.CN's ROE of -4.27%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to BCBC.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs AYUR.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, AYUR.CN has a market cap of 4.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while AYUR.CN trades at CA$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas AYUR.CN's P/E ratio is -1.25. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to AYUR.CN's ROE of -3.52%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to AYUR.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs AION.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, AION.CN has a market cap of 4.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while AION.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas AION.CN's P/E ratio is -0.50. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to AION.CN's ROE of +1.59%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to AION.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CANN.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CANN.CN has a market cap of 4.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CANN.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CANN.CN's P/E ratio is -0.25. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CANN.CN's ROE of -0.66%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to CANN.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs BHNG.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, BHNG.CN has a market cap of 4.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while BHNG.CN trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas BHNG.CN's P/E ratio is -1.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to BHNG.CN's ROE of +4.01%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to BHNG.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs FFNT.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, FFNT.CN has a market cap of 4.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while FFNT.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas FFNT.CN's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to FFNT.CN's ROE of +0.79%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to FFNT.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs LUFF.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, LUFF.CN has a market cap of 4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while LUFF.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas LUFF.CN's P/E ratio is -0.56. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to LUFF.CN's ROE of -0.32%. Regarding short-term risk, Volatility data is not available for a full comparison. GTII.CN has daily volatility of 5.20 and LUFF.CN has daily volatility of N/A.
GTII.CN vs FH.NE Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, FH.NE has a market cap of 3.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while FH.NE trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas FH.NE's P/E ratio is -0.50. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to FH.NE's ROE of -2.14%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to FH.NE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs TILT.NE Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, TILT.NE has a market cap of 3.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while TILT.NE trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas TILT.NE's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to TILT.NE's ROE of -10.80%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to TILT.NE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs BAMM.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, BAMM.CN has a market cap of 3.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while BAMM.CN trades at CA$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas BAMM.CN's P/E ratio is -0.12. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to BAMM.CN's ROE of +0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to BAMM.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs RMC.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, RMC.CN has a market cap of 3.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while RMC.CN trades at CA$0.12.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas RMC.CN's P/E ratio is -4.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to RMC.CN's ROE of +1.25%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to RMC.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs THC.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, THC.CN has a market cap of 3.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while THC.CN trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas THC.CN's P/E ratio is -1.00. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to THC.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to THC.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs NBUD.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, NBUD.CN has a market cap of 3.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while NBUD.CN trades at CA$0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas NBUD.CN's P/E ratio is -1.25. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to NBUD.CN's ROE of -0.54%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to NBUD.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs XBRA.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, XBRA.CN has a market cap of 3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while XBRA.CN trades at CA$0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas XBRA.CN's P/E ratio is -1.33. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to XBRA.CN's ROE of -20.92%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is less volatile compared to XBRA.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs MSVN.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, MSVN.CN has a market cap of 2.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while MSVN.CN trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas MSVN.CN's P/E ratio is -0.06. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to MSVN.CN's ROE of +19.42%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to MSVN.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs AREV.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, AREV.CN has a market cap of 2.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while AREV.CN trades at CA$0.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas AREV.CN's P/E ratio is -2.25. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to AREV.CN's ROE of +2.76%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to AREV.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs ASP.TO Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, ASP.TO has a market cap of 2.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while ASP.TO trades at CA$0.36.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas ASP.TO's P/E ratio is -0.08. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to ASP.TO's ROE of +3.10%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to ASP.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs CFT.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, CFT.CN has a market cap of 2.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while CFT.CN trades at CA$0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas CFT.CN's P/E ratio is -0.13. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CFT.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to CFT.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs IPOT.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, IPOT.CN has a market cap of 2.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while IPOT.CN trades at CA$0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas IPOT.CN's P/E ratio is -0.50. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to IPOT.CN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to IPOT.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.
GTII.CN vs PBF.CN Comparison
GTII.CN plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTII.CN stands at 1.7B. In comparison, PBF.CN has a market cap of 2.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTII.CN is priced at CA$7.17, while PBF.CN trades at CA$0.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTII.CN currently has a P/E ratio of 24.72, whereas PBF.CN's P/E ratio is -0.37. In terms of profitability, GTII.CN's ROE is +0.03%, compared to PBF.CN's ROE of +1.52%. Regarding short-term risk, GTII.CN is more volatile compared to PBF.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTII.CN.