Garrett Motion Inc.
Garrett Motion Inc. (GTX) Stock Competitors & Peer Comparison
See (GTX) 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTX | $13.09 | +1.16% | 2.6B | 9.22 | $1.42 | +0.93% |
| APTV-PA | $108.66 | +0.15% | 29.4B | 92.08 | $1.18 | N/A |
| APTV | $69.87 | -1.47% | 15.2B | 11.42 | $6.12 | N/A |
| MBLY | $15.18 | +2.43% | 12.5B | -4.16 | -$3.65 | N/A |
| MGA | $42.51 | -0.21% | 12B | 10.60 | $4.01 | +4.52% |
| ALV | $116.02 | -1.13% | 8.9B | 12.72 | $9.12 | +2.37% |
| LKQ | $31.49 | -2.11% | 8.1B | 11.49 | $2.74 | +3.73% |
| BWA | $35.77 | -0.69% | 7.9B | 25.19 | $1.42 | +1.22% |
| ALSN | $88.06 | -1.54% | 7.4B | 10.19 | $8.64 | +1.17% |
| GNTX | $27.92 | +1.82% | 6.3B | 15.77 | $1.77 | +1.75% |
Stock Comparison
GTX vs APTV-PA Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, APTV-PA has a market cap of 29.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas APTV-PA's P/E ratio is 92.08. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to APTV-PA's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to APTV-PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check APTV-PA's competition here
GTX vs APTV Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, APTV has a market cap of 15.2B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while APTV trades at $69.87.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas APTV's P/E ratio is 11.42. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to APTV's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to APTV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check APTV's competition here
GTX vs MBLY Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MBLY has a market cap of 12.5B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while MBLY trades at $15.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas MBLY's P/E ratio is -4.16. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MBLY's ROE of -0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to MBLY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check MBLY's competition here
GTX vs MGA Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MGA has a market cap of 12B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while MGA trades at $42.51.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas MGA's P/E ratio is 10.60. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MGA's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to MGA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check MGA's competition here
GTX vs ALV Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ALV has a market cap of 8.9B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while ALV trades at $116.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas ALV's P/E ratio is 12.72. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to ALV's ROE of +0.30%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to ALV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check ALV's competition here
GTX vs LKQ Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, LKQ has a market cap of 8.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while LKQ trades at $31.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas LKQ's P/E ratio is 11.49. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to LKQ's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to LKQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check LKQ's competition here
GTX vs BWA Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, BWA has a market cap of 7.9B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while BWA trades at $35.77.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas BWA's P/E ratio is 25.19. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to BWA's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to BWA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check BWA's competition here
GTX vs ALSN Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ALSN has a market cap of 7.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while ALSN trades at $88.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas ALSN's P/E ratio is 10.19. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to ALSN's ROE of +0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to ALSN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check ALSN's competition here
GTX vs GNTX Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, GNTX has a market cap of 6.3B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while GNTX trades at $27.92.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas GNTX's P/E ratio is 15.77. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to GNTX's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to GNTX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check GNTX's competition here
GTX vs QS Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, QS has a market cap of 6.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while QS trades at $10.98.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas QS's P/E ratio is -12.76. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to QS's ROE of -0.42%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to QS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check QS's competition here
GTX vs MOD Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MOD has a market cap of 5.5B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while MOD trades at $105.51.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas MOD's P/E ratio is 30.86. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MOD's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to MOD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check MOD's competition here
GTX vs LEA Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, LEA has a market cap of 5.3B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while LEA trades at $98.89.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas LEA's P/E ratio is 13.99. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to LEA's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to LEA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check LEA's competition here
GTX vs BC-PA Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, BC-PA has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while BC-PA trades at $24.47.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas BC-PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to BC-PA's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to BC-PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check BC-PA's competition here
GTX vs BC-PB Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, BC-PB has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas BC-PB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to BC-PB's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to BC-PB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check BC-PB's competition here
GTX vs DORM Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, DORM has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while DORM trades at $122.21.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas DORM's P/E ratio is 17.56. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to DORM's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to DORM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check DORM's competition here
GTX vs VC Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, VC has a market cap of 3.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while VC trades at $114.93.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas VC's P/E ratio is 10.95. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to VC's ROE of +0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to VC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check VC's competition here
GTX vs GT Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, GT has a market cap of 3.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while GT trades at $10.74.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas GT's P/E ratio is 12.79. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to GT's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to GT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check GT's competition here
GTX vs HSAI Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, HSAI has a market cap of 2.9B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while HSAI trades at $21.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas HSAI's P/E ratio is -2190.00. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to HSAI's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to HSAI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check HSAI's competition here
GTX vs DAN Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, DAN has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while DAN trades at $16.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas DAN's P/E ratio is -67.85. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to DAN's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to DAN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check DAN's competition here
GTX vs PHIN Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, PHIN has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while PHIN trades at $53.85.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas PHIN's P/E ratio is 20.79. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to PHIN's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to PHIN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check PHIN's competition here
GTX vs ADNT Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ADNT has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while ADNT trades at $22.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas ADNT's P/E ratio is -7.02. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to ADNT's ROE of -0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to ADNT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check ADNT's competition here
GTX vs FOXF Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, FOXF has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while FOXF trades at $29.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas FOXF's P/E ratio is -4.90. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to FOXF's ROE of -0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to FOXF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check FOXF's competition here
GTX vs AEVA Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, AEVA has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while AEVA trades at $22.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas AEVA's P/E ratio is -7.80. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to AEVA's ROE of -1.33%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to AEVA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check AEVA's competition here
GTX vs THRM Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, THRM has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while THRM trades at $34.61.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas THRM's P/E ratio is 34.27. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to THRM's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to THRM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check THRM's competition here
GTX vs XPEL Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, XPEL has a market cap of 956.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while XPEL trades at $34.58.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas XPEL's P/E ratio is 20.10. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to XPEL's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to XPEL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check XPEL's competition here
GTX vs SMP Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, SMP has a market cap of 713.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while SMP trades at $32.42.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas SMP's P/E ratio is 12.58. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to SMP's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to SMP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check SMP's competition here
GTX vs PLOW Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, PLOW has a market cap of 671M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while PLOW trades at $28.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas PLOW's P/E ratio is 10.59. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to PLOW's ROE of +0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to PLOW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check PLOW's competition here
GTX vs AXL Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, AXL has a market cap of 581.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while AXL trades at $4.89.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas AXL's P/E ratio is 27.22. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to AXL's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to AXL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check AXL's competition here
GTX vs GTXAP Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, GTXAP has a market cap of 557.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas GTXAP's P/E ratio is 4.44. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to GTXAP's ROE of -0.41%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to GTXAP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check GTXAP's competition here
GTX vs ECX Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ECX has a market cap of 516.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while ECX trades at $1.59.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas ECX's P/E ratio is -4.54. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to ECX's ROE of +0.51%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to ECX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check ECX's competition here
GTX vs ALLG Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ALLG has a market cap of 496.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas ALLG's P/E ratio is -3.96. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to ALLG's ROE of +4.17%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to ALLG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check ALLG's competition here
GTX vs SES Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, SES has a market cap of 495.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while SES trades at $1.36.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas SES's P/E ratio is -4.52. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to SES's ROE of -0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to SES. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check SES's competition here
GTX vs MLR Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MLR has a market cap of 490.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while MLR trades at $42.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas MLR's P/E ratio is 9.12. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MLR's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to MLR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check MLR's competition here
GTX vs MNRO Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MNRO has a market cap of 488.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while MNRO trades at $16.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas MNRO's P/E ratio is -74.09. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MNRO's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to MNRO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check MNRO's competition here
GTX vs CPS Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, CPS has a market cap of 446.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while CPS trades at $25.46.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas CPS's P/E ratio is -9.87. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to CPS's ROE of +0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to CPS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check CPS's competition here
GTX vs INVZW Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, INVZW has a market cap of 362.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while INVZW trades at $0.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas INVZW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to INVZW's ROE of -0.79%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to INVZW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check INVZW's competition here
GTX vs INVZ Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, INVZ has a market cap of 360.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while INVZ trades at $1.81.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas INVZ's P/E ratio is -3.93. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to INVZ's ROE of -0.79%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to INVZ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check INVZ's competition here
GTX vs HYLN Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, HYLN has a market cap of 286.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while HYLN trades at $1.63.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas HYLN's P/E ratio is -5.27. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to HYLN's ROE of -0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to HYLN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check HYLN's competition here
GTX vs HLLY-WT Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, HLLY-WT has a market cap of 275.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while HLLY-WT trades at $0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas HLLY-WT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to HLLY-WT's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to HLLY-WT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check HLLY-WT's competition here
GTX vs HLLY Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, HLLY has a market cap of 273.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while HLLY trades at $2.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas HLLY's P/E ratio is -10.95. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to HLLY's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to HLLY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check HLLY's competition here
GTX vs STRT Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, STRT has a market cap of 269.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while STRT trades at $64.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas STRT's P/E ratio is 13.04. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to STRT's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to STRT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check STRT's competition here
GTX vs SRI Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, SRI has a market cap of 242.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while SRI trades at $8.69.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas SRI's P/E ratio is -13.59. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to SRI's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to SRI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check SRI's competition here
GTX vs MPAA Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MPAA has a market cap of 234M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while MPAA trades at $12.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas MPAA's P/E ratio is -12.16. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MPAA's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to MPAA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check MPAA's competition here
GTX vs XL Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, XL has a market cap of 164.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas XL's P/E ratio is -3.21. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to XL's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to XL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check XL's competition here
GTX vs LAZR Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, LAZR has a market cap of 164.3M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while LAZR trades at $3.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas LAZR's P/E ratio is -0.54. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to LAZR's ROE of +0.84%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to LAZR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check LAZR's competition here
GTX vs CAAS Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, CAAS has a market cap of 127.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while CAAS trades at $4.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas CAAS's P/E ratio is 4.41. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to CAAS's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to CAAS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check CAAS's competition here
GTX vs GGR Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, GGR has a market cap of 113.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while GGR trades at $0.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas GGR's P/E ratio is -0.83. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to GGR's ROE of -0.60%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to GGR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check GGR's competition here
GTX vs KNDI Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, KNDI has a market cap of 110.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while KNDI trades at $1.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas KNDI's P/E ratio is -2.17. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to KNDI's ROE of -0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to KNDI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check KNDI's competition here
GTX vs LIDR Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, LIDR has a market cap of 77.9M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while LIDR trades at $4.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas LIDR's P/E ratio is -1.08. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to LIDR's ROE of -1.96%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to LIDR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check LIDR's competition here
GTX vs LIDRW Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, LIDRW has a market cap of 74.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while LIDRW trades at $0.36.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas LIDRW's P/E ratio is -0.11. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to LIDRW's ROE of -1.96%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to LIDRW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check LIDRW's competition here
GTX vs WPRT Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, WPRT has a market cap of 69.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while WPRT trades at $4.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas WPRT's P/E ratio is -6.44. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to WPRT's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to WPRT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check WPRT's competition here
GTX vs CVGI Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, CVGI has a market cap of 67.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while CVGI trades at $1.94.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas CVGI's P/E ratio is -1.60. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to CVGI's ROE of -0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to CVGI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check CVGI's competition here
GTX vs SYPR Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, SYPR has a market cap of 46.7M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while SYPR trades at $2.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas SYPR's P/E ratio is -101.50. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to SYPR's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to SYPR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check SYPR's competition here
GTX vs MKDW Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MKDW has a market cap of 31.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while MKDW trades at $0.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas MKDW's P/E ratio is -1.46. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MKDW's ROE of +1.39%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to MKDW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check MKDW's competition here
GTX vs NCNCW Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, NCNCW has a market cap of 20.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas NCNCW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to NCNCW's ROE of +3.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to NCNCW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check NCNCW's competition here
GTX vs NCNC Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, NCNC has a market cap of 20.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas NCNC's P/E ratio is -0.70. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to NCNC's ROE of +3.11%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to NCNC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check NCNC's competition here
GTX vs ECXWW Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, ECXWW has a market cap of 19.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas ECXWW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to ECXWW's ROE of +0.51%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to ECXWW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check ECXWW's competition here
GTX vs AMV Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, AMV has a market cap of 17.8M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas AMV's P/E ratio is -0.06. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to AMV's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to AMV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check AMV's competition here
GTX vs WKSP Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, WKSP has a market cap of 17.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while WKSP trades at $3.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas WKSP's P/E ratio is -0.66. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to WKSP's ROE of -0.93%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to WKSP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check WKSP's competition here
GTX vs INEO Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, INEO has a market cap of 11M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while INEO trades at $1.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas INEO's P/E ratio is 7.40. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to INEO's ROE of +0.35%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to INEO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check INEO's competition here
GTX vs SAG Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, SAG has a market cap of 10.4M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas SAG's P/E ratio is 6.73. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to SAG's ROE of +0.35%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to SAG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check SAG's competition here
GTX vs CREV Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, CREV has a market cap of 10.2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while CREV trades at $5.42.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas CREV's P/E ratio is -0.07. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to CREV's ROE of +2.58%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to CREV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check CREV's competition here
GTX vs SUP Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, SUP has a market cap of 9.6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas SUP's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to SUP's ROE of +0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to SUP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check SUP's competition here
GTX vs FRSX Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, FRSX has a market cap of 8.5M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while FRSX trades at $0.44.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas FRSX's P/E ratio is -0.73. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to FRSX's ROE of -1.15%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to FRSX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check FRSX's competition here
GTX vs GGROW Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, GGROW has a market cap of 6M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while GGROW trades at $0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas GGROW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to GGROW's ROE of -0.60%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to GGROW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check GGROW's competition here
GTX vs MKDWW Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MKDWW has a market cap of 2.1M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas MKDWW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MKDWW's ROE of +1.39%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to MKDWW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check MKDWW's competition here
GTX vs UFAB Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, UFAB has a market cap of 2M. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas UFAB's P/E ratio is -0.08. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to UFAB's ROE of -0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to UFAB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check UFAB's competition here
GTX vs WKSPW Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, WKSPW has a market cap of 575.3K. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas WKSPW's P/E ratio is -0.05. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to WKSPW's ROE of -0.93%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to WKSPW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check WKSPW's competition here
GTX vs CREVW Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, CREVW has a market cap of 219.8K. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, while CREVW trades at $0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas CREVW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to CREVW's ROE of -1.47%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to CREVW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check CREVW's competition here
GTX vs HYZNW Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, HYZNW has a market cap of 15.5K. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas HYZNW's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to HYZNW's ROE of -2.38%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to HYZNW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check HYZNW's competition here
GTX vs VNE Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, VNE has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas VNE's P/E ratio is -10.74. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to VNE's ROE of -0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to VNE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check VNE's competition here
GTX vs MTOR Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, MTOR has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas MTOR's P/E ratio is 11.97. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MTOR's ROE of +0.38%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to MTOR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check MTOR's competition here
GTX vs HZN Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, HZN has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas HZN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to HZN's ROE of +1.26%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is more volatile compared to HZN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check HZN's competition here
GTX vs RMO Comparison July 2025
GTX plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, GTX stands at 2.6B. In comparison, RMO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, GTX is priced at $13.09, 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.
GTX currently has a P/E ratio of 9.22, whereas RMO's P/E ratio is -0.29. In terms of profitability, GTX's ROE is -0.41%, compared to RMO's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, GTX is less volatile compared to RMO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for GTX.Check RMO's competition here