LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd.

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, AMZN has a market cap of 2.3T. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while AMZN trades at $204.86.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas AMZN's P/E ratio is 29.34. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to AMZN's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to AMZN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check AMZN's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BABA has a market cap of 358.3B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BABA trades at $154.27.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BABA's P/E ratio is 21.08. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BABA's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to BABA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BABA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, PDD has a market cap of 146.8B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while PDD trades at $101.95.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas PDD's P/E ratio is 10.50. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to PDD's ROE of +0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to PDD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check PDD's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, MELI has a market cap of 101.2B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while MELI trades at $1,996.55.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas MELI's P/E ratio is 48.73. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to MELI's ROE of +0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to MELI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check MELI's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, SE has a market cap of 68B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while SE trades at $114.60.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas SE's P/E ratio is 50.19. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to SE's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to SE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check SE's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, EBAY has a market cap of 39.8B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while EBAY trades at $84.75.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas EBAY's P/E ratio is 19.53. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to EBAY's ROE of +0.43%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to EBAY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check EBAY's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, JD has a market cap of 38.9B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while JD trades at $27.27.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas JD's P/E ratio is 8.90. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to JD's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to JD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check JD's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, CPNG has a market cap of 34.3B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while CPNG trades at $18.45.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas CPNG's P/E ratio is 89.33. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to CPNG's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to CPNG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check CPNG's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, ULTA has a market cap of 30.6B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while ULTA trades at $692.79.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas ULTA's P/E ratio is 26.07. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to ULTA's ROE of +0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to ULTA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check ULTA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, TSCO has a market cap of 28B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while TSCO trades at $51.96.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas TSCO's P/E ratio is 25.71. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to TSCO's ROE of +0.44%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to TSCO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check TSCO's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, WSM has a market cap of 25.7B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while WSM trades at $210.82.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas WSM's P/E ratio is 23.69. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to WSM's ROE of +0.52%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to WSM. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check WSM's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, CASY has a market cap of 24.7B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while CASY trades at $663.11.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas CASY's P/E ratio is 41.08. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to CASY's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to CASY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check CASY's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, DKS has a market cap of 16.7B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while DKS trades at $202.74.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas DKS's P/E ratio is 16.79. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to DKS's ROE of +0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to DKS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check DKS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, GPC has a market cap of 16.4B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while GPC trades at $119.37.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas GPC's P/E ratio is 20.57. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to GPC's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to GPC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check GPC's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BBY has a market cap of 13.5B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BBY trades at $66.30.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BBY's P/E ratio is 21.49. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BBY's ROE of +0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to BBY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BBY's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, CHWY has a market cap of 11B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while CHWY trades at $25.86.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas CHWY's P/E ratio is 53.98. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to CHWY's ROE of +0.55%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to CHWY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check CHWY's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, W has a market cap of 10.6B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while W trades at $79.57.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas W's P/E ratio is -31.69. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to W's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to W. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check W's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, GME has a market cap of 10.5B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while GME trades at $23.90.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas GME's P/E ratio is 26.63. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to GME's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to GME. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check GME's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, CART has a market cap of 9.5B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while CART trades at $35.57.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas CART's P/E ratio is 22.66. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to CART's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to CART. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check CART's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, VIPS has a market cap of 9B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while VIPS trades at $17.48.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas VIPS's P/E ratio is 9.18. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to VIPS's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to VIPS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check VIPS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, MUSA has a market cap of 7.3B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while MUSA trades at $396.17.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas MUSA's P/E ratio is 16.21. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to MUSA's ROE of +0.74%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to MUSA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check MUSA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, GLBE has a market cap of 6.1B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while GLBE trades at $36.24.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas GLBE's P/E ratio is 902.00. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to GLBE's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to GLBE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check GLBE's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, MNSO has a market cap of 6.1B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while MNSO trades at $19.64.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas MNSO's P/E ratio is 19.43. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to MNSO's ROE of +0.26%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to MNSO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check MNSO's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, ETSY has a market cap of 5.2B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while ETSY trades at $48.14.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas ETSY's P/E ratio is 35.28. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to ETSY's ROE of -0.31%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to ETSY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check ETSY's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BBWI has a market cap of 5B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BBWI trades at $24.14.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BBWI's P/E ratio is 7.54. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BBWI's ROE of -0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to BBWI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BBWI's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, ASO has a market cap of 3.9B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while ASO trades at $59.07.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas ASO's P/E ratio is 10.81. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to ASO's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to ASO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check ASO's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, RH has a market cap of 3.9B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while RH trades at $204.63.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas RH's P/E ratio is 37.65. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to RH's ROE of -1.41%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to RH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check RH's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, AAP has a market cap of 3.4B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while AAP trades at $55.98.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas AAP's P/E ratio is 49.42. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to AAP's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to AAP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check AAP's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BOBS has a market cap of 2.9B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BOBS trades at $20.68.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BOBS's P/E ratio is 23.94. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BOBS's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to BOBS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BOBS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, OZON has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while OZON trades at $11.60.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas OZON's P/E ratio is -2.61. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to OZON's ROE of +1.03%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to OZON. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check OZON's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, EYE has a market cap of 2.2B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while EYE trades at $27.20.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas EYE's P/E ratio is -547.00. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to EYE's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to EYE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check EYE's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, RERE has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while RERE trades at $5.51.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas RERE's P/E ratio is 32.56. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to RERE's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to RERE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check RERE's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, RVLV has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while RVLV trades at $25.07.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas RVLV's P/E ratio is 32.71. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to RVLV's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to RVLV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check RVLV's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, SVV has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while SVV trades at $10.24.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas SVV's P/E ratio is -1044.00. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to SVV's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to SVV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check SVV's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, SBH has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while SBH trades at $15.76.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas SBH's P/E ratio is 9.03. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to SBH's ROE of +0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to SBH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check SBH's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, TA has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while TA trades at $86.00.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas TA's P/E ratio is 9.03. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to TA's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to TA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check TA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, OLPX has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while OLPX trades at $1.64.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas OLPX's P/E ratio is 82.50. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to OLPX's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to OLPX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check OLPX's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, NEGG has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while NEGG trades at $52.50.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas NEGG's P/E ratio is -43.08. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to NEGG's ROE of -0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to NEGG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check NEGG's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, TANNI has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while TANNI trades at $25.29.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas TANNI's P/E ratio is 35.27. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to TANNI's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to TANNI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check TANNI's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, LQDT has a market cap of 987.6M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while LQDT trades at $31.78.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas LQDT's P/E ratio is 34.61. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to LQDT's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to LQDT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check LQDT's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, HEPS has a market cap of 872.2M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while HEPS trades at $2.69.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas HEPS's P/E ratio is -12.90. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to HEPS's ROE of -1.21%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to HEPS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check HEPS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, EVGO has a market cap of 862.4M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while EVGO trades at $2.82.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas EVGO's P/E ratio is -7.37. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to EVGO's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to EVGO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check EVGO's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, ODP has a market cap of 843.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while ODP trades at $28.00.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas ODP's P/E ratio is 133.33. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to ODP's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to ODP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check ODP's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, OSTK has a market cap of 768M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while OSTK trades at $16.78.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas OSTK's P/E ratio is -4.64. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to OSTK's ROE of -0.91%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to OSTK. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check OSTK's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, WOOF has a market cap of 719.7M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while WOOF trades at $2.57.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas WOOF's P/E ratio is -256.00. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to WOOF's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to WOOF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check WOOF's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BWMX has a market cap of 696.7M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BWMX trades at $19.37.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BWMX's P/E ratio is 38.90. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BWMX's ROE of +0.87%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to BWMX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BWMX's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BBW has a market cap of 689.1M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BBW trades at $53.03.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BBW's P/E ratio is 12.12. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BBW's ROE of +0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to BBW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BBW's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, ARKO has a market cap of 676.4M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while ARKO trades at $6.20.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas ARKO's P/E ratio is 55.18. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to ARKO's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to ARKO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check ARKO's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, HZO has a market cap of 628.7M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while HZO trades at $28.69.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas HZO's P/E ratio is -11.02. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to HZO's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to HZO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check HZO's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, ZKH has a market cap of 591.9M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while ZKH trades at $3.67.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas ZKH's P/E ratio is -18.25. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to ZKH's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to ZKH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check ZKH's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, TDUP has a market cap of 581.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while TDUP trades at $4.82.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas TDUP's P/E ratio is -24.42. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to TDUP's ROE of -0.63%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to TDUP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check TDUP's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, LE has a market cap of 578M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while LE trades at $18.83.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas LE's P/E ratio is 51.14. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to LE's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to LE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check LE's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BYON has a market cap of 567.2M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BYON trades at $9.88.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BYON's P/E ratio is -2.42. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BYON's ROE of -0.91%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to BYON. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BYON's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, JMIA has a market cap of 567M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while JMIA trades at $9.31.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas JMIA's P/E ratio is -18.52. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to JMIA's ROE of -1.34%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to JMIA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check JMIA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, DADA has a market cap of 506.2M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while DADA trades at $1.96.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas DADA's P/E ratio is -1.80. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to DADA's ROE of -0.34%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to DADA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check DADA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, YSG has a market cap of 389M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while YSG trades at $4.26.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas YSG's P/E ratio is -5.53. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to YSG's ROE of -0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to YSG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check YSG's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BBBY has a market cap of 362M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BBBY trades at $5.16.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BBBY's P/E ratio is -1.88. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BBBY's ROE of -0.94%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to BBBY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BBBY's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BNED has a market cap of 284.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BNED trades at $8.28.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BNED's P/E ratio is 11.36. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BNED's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to BNED. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BNED's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, FTCH has a market cap of 254.2M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while FTCH trades at $0.64.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas FTCH's P/E ratio is -0.28. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to FTCH's ROE of +0.86%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to FTCH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check FTCH's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, HNST has a market cap of 253.8M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while HNST trades at $2.20.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas HNST's P/E ratio is 37.83. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to HNST's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to HNST. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check HNST's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, LOGC has a market cap of 215.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while LOGC trades at $7.95.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas LOGC's P/E ratio is -12.71. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to LOGC's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to LOGC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check LOGC's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, QRTEA has a market cap of 213.5M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while QRTEA trades at $0.36.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas QRTEA's P/E ratio is -0.51. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to QRTEA's ROE of +1.84%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to QRTEA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check QRTEA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, FLWS has a market cap of 208.8M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while FLWS trades at $3.28.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas FLWS's P/E ratio is -0.99. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to FLWS's ROE of -0.78%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to FLWS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check FLWS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, DIBS has a market cap of 198.4M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while DIBS trades at $5.29.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas DIBS's P/E ratio is -11.06. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to DIBS's ROE of -0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to DIBS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check DIBS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BZUN has a market cap of 159.7M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BZUN trades at $2.72.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BZUN's P/E ratio is -5.75. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BZUN's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to BZUN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BZUN's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, VLTA has a market cap of 150M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while VLTA trades at $0.86.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas VLTA's P/E ratio is -1.30. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to VLTA's ROE of -0.71%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to VLTA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check VLTA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, CHPT has a market cap of 145.8M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while CHPT trades at $6.17.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas CHPT's P/E ratio is -0.58. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to CHPT's ROE of -2.57%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to CHPT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check CHPT's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BARK has a market cap of 140M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BARK trades at $0.75.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BARK's P/E ratio is -4.26. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BARK's ROE of -0.36%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to BARK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BARK's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, JMG has a market cap of 134.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while JMG trades at $6.61.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas JMG's P/E ratio is 44.07. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to JMG's ROE of -0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to JMG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check JMG's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, QRTEP has a market cap of 130M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while QRTEP trades at $39.91.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas QRTEP's P/E ratio is 120.21. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to QRTEP's ROE of +1.84%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to QRTEP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check QRTEP's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, GOED has a market cap of 129.4M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while GOED trades at $1.23.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas GOED's P/E ratio is 1.81. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to GOED's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to GOED. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check GOED's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, QVCGB has a market cap of 127.5M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while QVCGB trades at $20.00.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas QVCGB's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to QVCGB's ROE of +1.84%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to QVCGB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check QVCGB's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, NPT has a market cap of 122M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while NPT trades at $5.67.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas NPT's P/E ratio is -137.50. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to NPT's ROE of +0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to NPT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check NPT's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, AKA has a market cap of 113.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while AKA trades at $10.76.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas AKA's P/E ratio is -4.29. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to AKA's ROE of -0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to AKA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check AKA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, APRN has a market cap of 100M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while APRN trades at $12.99.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas APRN's P/E ratio is -0.70. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to APRN's ROE of -1.93%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to APRN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check APRN's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, HOUR has a market cap of 69.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while HOUR trades at $1.96.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas HOUR's P/E ratio is 65.67. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to HOUR's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to HOUR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check HOUR's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, GRWG has a market cap of 65.8M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while GRWG trades at $1.17.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas GRWG's P/E ratio is -1.64. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to GRWG's ROE of -0.36%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to GRWG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check GRWG's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, CGTL has a market cap of 55.7M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while CGTL trades at $2.64.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas CGTL's P/E ratio is -4.56. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to CGTL's ROE of -0.75%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to CGTL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check CGTL's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, QRTEB has a market cap of 51.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while QRTEB trades at $2.00.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas QRTEB's P/E ratio is -2.82. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to QRTEB's ROE of +1.84%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to QRTEB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check QRTEB's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, CTIB has a market cap of 48.2M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while CTIB trades at $2.40.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas CTIB's P/E ratio is -26.67. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to CTIB's ROE of -0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to CTIB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check CTIB's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, QVCGP has a market cap of 45.9M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while QVCGP trades at $5.00.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas QVCGP's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to QVCGP's ROE of +1.84%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to QVCGP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check QVCGP's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, SPWH has a market cap of 45.8M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while SPWH trades at $1.21.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas SPWH's P/E ratio is -1.24. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to SPWH's ROE of -0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to SPWH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check SPWH's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, PRTS has a market cap of 44.4M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while PRTS trades at $0.69.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas PRTS's P/E ratio is -0.74. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to PRTS's ROE of -0.76%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to PRTS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check PRTS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, NHTC has a market cap of 38.2M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while NHTC trades at $3.27.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas NHTC's P/E ratio is -41.50. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to NHTC's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to NHTC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check NHTC's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, KIRK has a market cap of 37.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while KIRK trades at $1.66.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas KIRK's P/E ratio is -1.02. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to KIRK's ROE of +0.97%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to KIRK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check KIRK's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, QVCGA has a market cap of 36.7M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while QVCGA trades at $4.28.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas QVCGA's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to QVCGA's ROE of +1.84%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to QVCGA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check QVCGA's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, SSU has a market cap of 36.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while SSU trades at $0.09.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas SSU's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to SSU's ROE of -1.09%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to SSU. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check SSU's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BGFV has a market cap of 33M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BGFV trades at $1.44.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BGFV's P/E ratio is -0.34. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BGFV's ROE of -0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to BGFV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BGFV's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, DTC has a market cap of 31.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while DTC trades at $19.55.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas DTC's P/E ratio is -0.23. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to DTC's ROE of -0.93%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to DTC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check DTC's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, TLF has a market cap of 25M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while TLF trades at $3.09.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas TLF's P/E ratio is 2.56. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to TLF's ROE of +0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to TLF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check TLF's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, MI has a market cap of 23.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while MI trades at $5.49.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas MI's P/E ratio is -1.12. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to MI's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to MI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check MI's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, TBHC has a market cap of 23.1M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while TBHC trades at $1.05.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas TBHC's P/E ratio is -1.04. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to TBHC's ROE of +0.97%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to TBHC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check TBHC's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, MOGU has a market cap of 21M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while MOGU trades at $2.76.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas MOGU's P/E ratio is 5.77. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to MOGU's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is more volatile compared to MOGU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check MOGU's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, LGCB has a market cap of 17.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while LGCB trades at $1.63.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas LGCB's P/E ratio is -1.34. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to LGCB's ROE of -0.88%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to LGCB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check LGCB's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, JBDI has a market cap of 14.4M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while JBDI trades at $0.75.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas JBDI's P/E ratio is -5.36. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to JBDI's ROE of -0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to JBDI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check JBDI's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, BOXD has a market cap of 14M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while BOXD trades at $0.19.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas BOXD's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to BOXD's ROE of +0.45%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to BOXD. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check BOXD's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, SBDS has a market cap of 10.7M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while SBDS trades at $6.34.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas SBDS's P/E ratio is -0.13. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to SBDS's ROE of -1.00%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to SBDS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check SBDS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, TCS has a market cap of 9.1M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while TCS trades at $2.65.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas TCS's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to TCS's ROE of -0.49%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to TCS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check TCS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LITB stands at 24.5M. In comparison, EVGOW has a market cap of 7.8M. Regarding current trading prices, LITB is priced at $2.72, while EVGOW trades at $0.06.

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

LITB currently has a P/E ratio of 11.17, whereas EVGOW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, LITB's ROE is -0.49%, compared to EVGOW's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, LITB is less volatile compared to EVGOW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LITB.Check EVGOW's competition here