Lowe's Companies, Inc.

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

Comparing market capitalization, LOW stands at 127.2B. In comparison, HD has a market cap of 373.5B. Regarding current trading prices, LOW is priced at $226.80, while HD trades at $375.34.

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

LOW currently has a P/E ratio of 18.77, whereas HD's P/E ratio is 25.50. In terms of profitability, LOW's ROE is -0.50%, compared to HD's ROE of +2.36%. Regarding short-term risk, LOW is more volatile compared to HD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LOW.Check HD's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LOW stands at 127.2B. In comparison, FND has a market cap of 8.6B. Regarding current trading prices, LOW is priced at $226.80, while FND trades at $79.90.

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

LOW currently has a P/E ratio of 18.77, whereas FND's P/E ratio is 42.26. In terms of profitability, LOW's ROE is -0.50%, compared to FND's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, LOW is less volatile compared to FND. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LOW.Check FND's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LOW stands at 127.2B. In comparison, MLHR has a market cap of 2.9B. Regarding current trading prices, LOW is priced at $226.80, while MLHR trades at $38.66.

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

LOW currently has a P/E ratio of 18.77, whereas MLHR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, LOW's ROE is -0.50%, compared to MLHR's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, LOW is less volatile compared to MLHR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LOW.Check MLHR's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LOW stands at 127.2B. In comparison, ARHS has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, LOW is priced at $226.80, while ARHS trades at $9.53.

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

LOW currently has a P/E ratio of 18.77, whereas ARHS's P/E ratio is 23.24. In terms of profitability, LOW's ROE is -0.50%, compared to ARHS's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, LOW is less volatile compared to ARHS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LOW.Check ARHS's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LOW stands at 127.2B. In comparison, HVT-A has a market cap of 348.2M. Regarding current trading prices, LOW is priced at $226.80, while HVT-A trades at $21.18.

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

LOW currently has a P/E ratio of 18.77, whereas HVT-A's P/E ratio is 16.55. In terms of profitability, LOW's ROE is -0.50%, compared to HVT-A's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, LOW is more volatile compared to HVT-A. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LOW.Check HVT-A's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LOW stands at 127.2B. In comparison, HVT has a market cap of 346.3M. Regarding current trading prices, LOW is priced at $226.80, while HVT trades at $21.41.

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

LOW currently has a P/E ratio of 18.77, whereas HVT's P/E ratio is 16.74. In terms of profitability, LOW's ROE is -0.50%, compared to HVT's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, LOW is less volatile compared to HVT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LOW.Check HVT's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LOW stands at 127.2B. In comparison, TTSH has a market cap of 296.1M. Regarding current trading prices, LOW is priced at $226.80, while TTSH trades at $6.62.

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

LOW currently has a P/E ratio of 18.77, whereas TTSH's P/E ratio is 662.00. In terms of profitability, LOW's ROE is -0.50%, compared to TTSH's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, LOW is less volatile compared to TTSH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LOW.Check TTSH's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LOW stands at 127.2B. In comparison, LESL has a market cap of 110.5M. Regarding current trading prices, LOW is priced at $226.80, while LESL trades at $0.60.

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

LOW currently has a P/E ratio of 18.77, whereas LESL's P/E ratio is -2.38. In terms of profitability, LOW's ROE is -0.50%, compared to LESL's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, LOW is less volatile compared to LESL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LOW.Check LESL's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LOW stands at 127.2B. In comparison, LIVE has a market cap of 50M. Regarding current trading prices, LOW is priced at $226.80, while LIVE trades at $16.23.

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

LOW currently has a P/E ratio of 18.77, whereas LIVE's P/E ratio is -8.00. In terms of profitability, LOW's ROE is -0.50%, compared to LIVE's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, LOW is less volatile compared to LIVE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LOW.Check LIVE's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LOW stands at 127.2B. In comparison, LL has a market cap of 25.9M. Regarding current trading prices, LOW is priced at $226.80, while LL trades at $0.84.

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

LOW currently has a P/E ratio of 18.77, whereas LL's P/E ratio is -0.20. In terms of profitability, LOW's ROE is -0.50%, compared to LL's ROE of -0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, LOW is less volatile compared to LL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LOW.Check LL's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LOW stands at 127.2B. In comparison, PFAI has a market cap of 21.4M. Regarding current trading prices, LOW is priced at $226.80, while PFAI trades at $1.94.

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

LOW currently has a P/E ratio of 18.77, whereas PFAI's P/E ratio is 91.50. In terms of profitability, LOW's ROE is -0.50%, compared to PFAI's ROE of -0.43%. Regarding short-term risk, LOW is less volatile compared to PFAI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LOW.Check PFAI's competition here

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

Comparing market capitalization, LOW stands at 127.2B. In comparison, HBP has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, LOW is priced at $226.80, while HBP trades at $10.70.

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

LOW currently has a P/E ratio of 18.77, whereas HBP's P/E ratio is 6.07. In terms of profitability, LOW's ROE is -0.50%, compared to HBP's ROE of +0.72%. Regarding short-term risk, LOW is more volatile compared to HBP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for LOW.Check HBP's competition here