Medaro Mining Corp.
Medaro Mining Corp. MEDA.CN Peers
See (MEDA.CN) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Industrial Materials Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEDA.CN | $0.48 | +11.76% | 1.73M | -1.25 | -$0.38 | N/A |
| TECK-A.TO | $53.50 | +1.21% | 26.37B | 764.29 | $0.07 | +0.93% |
| TECK-B.TO | $51.85 | -2.04% | 25.68B | 740.71 | $0.07 | +1.93% |
| IVN.TO | $14.50 | -0.96% | 19.61B | 32.22 | $0.45 | N/A |
| AKE.TO | $8.86 | -0.56% | 5.68B | 9.53 | $0.93 | N/A |
| FIL.TO | $32.25 | -1.01% | 4.37B | -31.01 | -$1.04 | N/A |
| NGEX.TO | $11.90 | -0.25% | 2.46B | -30.51 | -$0.39 | N/A |
| SKE.TO | $17.33 | +2.00% | 1.96B | -11.33 | -$1.53 | N/A |
| FOM.TO | $3.25 | -11.44% | 1.59B | -65.00 | -$0.05 | N/A |
| ALS.TO | $26.05 | -2.10% | 1.21B | 12.29 | $2.12 | +1.38% |
Stock Comparison
MEDA.CN vs TECK-A.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, TECK-A.TO has a market cap of 26.37B. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while TECK-A.TO trades at $53.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas TECK-A.TO's P/E ratio is 764.29. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to TECK-A.TO's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to TECK-A.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs TECK-B.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, TECK-B.TO has a market cap of 25.68B. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while TECK-B.TO trades at $51.85.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas TECK-B.TO's P/E ratio is 740.71. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to TECK-B.TO's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to TECK-B.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs IVN.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, IVN.TO has a market cap of 19.61B. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while IVN.TO trades at $14.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas IVN.TO's P/E ratio is 32.22. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to IVN.TO's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to IVN.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs AKE.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, AKE.TO has a market cap of 5.68B. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while AKE.TO trades at $8.86.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas AKE.TO's P/E ratio is 9.53. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to AKE.TO's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to AKE.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs FIL.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, FIL.TO has a market cap of 4.37B. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while FIL.TO trades at $32.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas FIL.TO's P/E ratio is -31.01. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to FIL.TO's ROE of -1.18%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to FIL.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs NGEX.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, NGEX.TO has a market cap of 2.46B. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while NGEX.TO trades at $11.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas NGEX.TO's P/E ratio is -30.51. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to NGEX.TO's ROE of -0.72%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to NGEX.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs SKE.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, SKE.TO has a market cap of 1.96B. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while SKE.TO trades at $17.33.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas SKE.TO's P/E ratio is -11.33. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to SKE.TO's ROE of -1.34%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to SKE.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs FOM.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, FOM.TO has a market cap of 1.59B. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while FOM.TO trades at $3.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas FOM.TO's P/E ratio is -65.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to FOM.TO's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to FOM.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs ALS.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, ALS.TO has a market cap of 1.21B. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while ALS.TO trades at $26.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas ALS.TO's P/E ratio is 12.29. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to ALS.TO's ROE of +0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to ALS.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs LAC.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, LAC.TO has a market cap of 945.54M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while LAC.TO trades at $4.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas LAC.TO's P/E ratio is -14.90. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to LAC.TO's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to LAC.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs VZLA.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, VZLA.TO has a market cap of 907.67M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while VZLA.TO trades at $3.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas VZLA.TO's P/E ratio is -104.33. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to VZLA.TO's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to VZLA.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs NDM.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, NDM.TO has a market cap of 694.77M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while NDM.TO trades at $1.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas NDM.TO's P/E ratio is -18.43. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to NDM.TO's ROE of -0.32%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to NDM.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs MDI.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, MDI.TO has a market cap of 689.95M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while MDI.TO trades at $8.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas MDI.TO's P/E ratio is 20.07. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to MDI.TO's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to MDI.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs AII.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, AII.TO has a market cap of 664.54M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while AII.TO trades at $2.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas AII.TO's P/E ratio is -39.17. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to AII.TO's ROE of -0.38%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to AII.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs LAAC.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, LAAC.TO has a market cap of 633.14M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while LAAC.TO trades at $3.91.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas LAAC.TO's P/E ratio is -39.10. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to LAAC.TO's ROE of +1.52%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to LAAC.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs POM.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, POM.TO has a market cap of 552.27M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while POM.TO trades at $2.84.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas POM.TO's P/E ratio is -10.52. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to POM.TO's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to POM.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs USA.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, USA.TO has a market cap of 502.31M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while USA.TO trades at $0.77.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas USA.TO's P/E ratio is -4.28. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to USA.TO's ROE of -0.99%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to USA.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs ETG.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, ETG.TO has a market cap of 487.39M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while ETG.TO trades at $2.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas ETG.TO's P/E ratio is -33.57. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to ETG.TO's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to ETG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs FVL.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, FVL.TO has a market cap of 486.16M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while FVL.TO trades at $0.92.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas FVL.TO's P/E ratio is -92.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to FVL.TO's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to FVL.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs SOLG.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, SOLG.TO has a market cap of 405.15M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while SOLG.TO trades at $0.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas SOLG.TO's P/E ratio is -4.50. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to SOLG.TO's ROE of -0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to SOLG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs PMET.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, PMET.TO has a market cap of 366.15M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while PMET.TO trades at $2.33.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas PMET.TO's P/E ratio is -58.25. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to PMET.TO's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to PMET.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs ERD.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, ERD.TO has a market cap of 315.83M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while ERD.TO trades at $0.87.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas ERD.TO's P/E ratio is -43.50. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to ERD.TO's ROE of -0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to ERD.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs LUCA.V Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, LUCA.V has a market cap of 312.86M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while LUCA.V trades at $1.21.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas LUCA.V's P/E ratio is -15.12. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to LUCA.V's ROE of -0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to LUCA.V. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs TMQ.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, TMQ.TO has a market cap of 303.80M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while TMQ.TO trades at $1.85.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas TMQ.TO's P/E ratio is -26.43. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to TMQ.TO's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to TMQ.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs LIRC.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, LIRC.TO has a market cap of 298.28M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while LIRC.TO trades at $5.44.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas LIRC.TO's P/E ratio is -77.71. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to LIRC.TO's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to LIRC.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs WRN.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, WRN.TO has a market cap of 298.00M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while WRN.TO trades at $1.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas WRN.TO's P/E ratio is -37.25. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to WRN.TO's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to WRN.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs GLO.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, GLO.TO has a market cap of 277.26M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while GLO.TO trades at $0.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas GLO.TO's P/E ratio is 22.50. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to GLO.TO's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN and GLO.TO have similar daily volatility (5.41).
MEDA.CN vs LIFT.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, LIFT.CN has a market cap of 275.99M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while LIFT.CN trades at $7.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas LIFT.CN's P/E ratio is 50.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to LIFT.CN's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to LIFT.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs ECOR.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, ECOR.TO has a market cap of 270.77M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while ECOR.TO trades at $1.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas ECOR.TO's P/E ratio is -21.80. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to ECOR.TO's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to ECOR.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs MNO.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, MNO.TO has a market cap of 245.70M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while MNO.TO trades at $0.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas MNO.TO's P/E ratio is -8.75. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to MNO.TO's ROE of -1.19%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to MNO.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs SMT.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, SMT.TO has a market cap of 243.90M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while SMT.TO trades at $1.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas SMT.TO's P/E ratio is 7.67. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to SMT.TO's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to SMT.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs TLG.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, TLG.TO has a market cap of 233.51M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while TLG.TO trades at $0.61.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas TLG.TO's P/E ratio is -7.62. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to TLG.TO's ROE of -0.97%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to TLG.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs PRYM.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, PRYM.TO has a market cap of 200.35M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while PRYM.TO trades at $1.34.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas PRYM.TO's P/E ratio is -8.93. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to PRYM.TO's ROE of -0.62%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to PRYM.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs FAR.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, FAR.TO has a market cap of 184.56M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while FAR.TO trades at $1.87.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas FAR.TO's P/E ratio is 6.45. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to FAR.TO's ROE of +0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to FAR.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs LAM.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, LAM.TO has a market cap of 165.25M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while LAM.TO trades at $0.63.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas LAM.TO's P/E ratio is -21.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to LAM.TO's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to LAM.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs GEO.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, GEO.TO has a market cap of 161.77M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while GEO.TO trades at $3.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas GEO.TO's P/E ratio is 13.19. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to GEO.TO's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to GEO.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs AMC.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, AMC.TO has a market cap of 157.16M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while AMC.TO trades at $1.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas AMC.TO's P/E ratio is -5.48. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to AMC.TO's ROE of -1.05%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to AMC.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs IBAT.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, IBAT.CN has a market cap of 156.54M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while IBAT.CN trades at $0.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas IBAT.CN's P/E ratio is -7.14. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to IBAT.CN's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to IBAT.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs ARA.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, ARA.TO has a market cap of 147.39M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while ARA.TO trades at $0.67.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas ARA.TO's P/E ratio is -11.17. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to ARA.TO's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to ARA.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs TLO.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, TLO.TO has a market cap of 144.88M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while TLO.TO trades at $0.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas TLO.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to TLO.TO's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to TLO.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs LGO.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, LGO.TO has a market cap of 134.64M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while LGO.TO trades at $2.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas LGO.TO's P/E ratio is -1.94. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to LGO.TO's ROE of -0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to LGO.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs AOT.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, AOT.TO has a market cap of 133.63M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while AOT.TO trades at $0.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas AOT.TO's P/E ratio is -1.80. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to AOT.TO's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to AOT.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs CDPR.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, CDPR.CN has a market cap of 125.81M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while CDPR.CN trades at $0.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas CDPR.CN's P/E ratio is -1.59. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to CDPR.CN's ROE of -1.05%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to CDPR.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs NB.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, NB.TO has a market cap of 124.35M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while NB.TO trades at $3.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas NB.TO's P/E ratio is -1.94. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to NB.TO's ROE of +2.25%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to NB.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs MOLY.NE Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, MOLY.NE has a market cap of 101.70M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while MOLY.NE trades at $0.85.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas MOLY.NE's P/E ratio is -21.25. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to MOLY.NE's ROE of -1.49%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to MOLY.NE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs FSY.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, FSY.TO has a market cap of 101.13M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while FSY.TO trades at $0.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas FSY.TO's P/E ratio is -48.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to FSY.TO's ROE of -0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to FSY.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs TI.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, TI.TO has a market cap of 83.18M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while TI.TO trades at $0.61.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas TI.TO's P/E ratio is 8.71. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to TI.TO's ROE of -1.97%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to TI.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs FURY.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, FURY.TO has a market cap of 80.17M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while FURY.TO trades at $0.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas FURY.TO's P/E ratio is -0.68. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to FURY.TO's ROE of -0.70%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to FURY.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs GMX.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, GMX.TO has a market cap of 79.09M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while GMX.TO trades at $1.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas GMX.TO's P/E ratio is 70.50. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to GMX.TO's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to GMX.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs SLR.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, SLR.TO has a market cap of 74.40M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while SLR.TO trades at $0.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas SLR.TO's P/E ratio is -9.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to SLR.TO's ROE of -0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to SLR.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs S.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, S.TO has a market cap of 67.00M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while S.TO trades at $0.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas S.TO's P/E ratio is -0.75. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to S.TO's ROE of -0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to S.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs SAU.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, SAU.TO has a market cap of 65.74M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while SAU.TO trades at $0.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas SAU.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to SAU.TO's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to SAU.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs NVLH.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, NVLH.CN has a market cap of 62.26M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while NVLH.CN trades at $0.24.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas NVLH.CN's P/E ratio is -24.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to NVLH.CN's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to NVLH.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs TSK.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, TSK.TO has a market cap of 56.05M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while TSK.TO trades at $0.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas TSK.TO's P/E ratio is -3.27. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to TSK.TO's ROE of -4.13%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to TSK.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs WM.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, WM.TO has a market cap of 54.99M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while WM.TO trades at $0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas WM.TO's P/E ratio is -5.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to WM.TO's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to WM.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs OGD.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, OGD.TO has a market cap of 49.24M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while OGD.TO trades at $1.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas OGD.TO's P/E ratio is 9.43. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to OGD.TO's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to OGD.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs VROY.V Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, VROY.V has a market cap of 46.06M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while VROY.V trades at $1.97.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas VROY.V's P/E ratio is -32.83. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to VROY.V's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to VROY.V. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs MIN.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, MIN.TO has a market cap of 44.16M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while MIN.TO trades at $0.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas MIN.TO's P/E ratio is -0.48. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to MIN.TO's ROE of +1.31%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to MIN.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs GENM.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, GENM.TO has a market cap of 43.84M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while GENM.TO trades at $0.19.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas GENM.TO's P/E ratio is -2.06. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to GENM.TO's ROE of +0.52%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to GENM.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs FOX.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, FOX.CN has a market cap of 43.30M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while FOX.CN trades at $0.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas FOX.CN's P/E ratio is -30.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to FOX.CN's ROE of -0.70%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to FOX.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs BKI.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, BKI.TO has a market cap of 42.58M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while BKI.TO trades at $0.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas BKI.TO's P/E ratio is -14.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to BKI.TO's ROE of +1.99%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to BKI.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs RUA.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, RUA.CN has a market cap of 40.46M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while RUA.CN trades at $0.17.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas RUA.CN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to RUA.CN's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to RUA.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs RUA.V Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, RUA.V has a market cap of 40.31M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while RUA.V trades at $0.67.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas RUA.V's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to RUA.V's ROE of -0.79%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to RUA.V. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs VALU.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, VALU.CN has a market cap of 39.24M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while VALU.CN trades at $0.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas VALU.CN's P/E ratio is -0.23. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to VALU.CN's ROE of +10.59%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to VALU.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs TOC.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, TOC.CN has a market cap of 38.59M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while TOC.CN trades at $0.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas TOC.CN's P/E ratio is -22.67. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to TOC.CN's ROE of -0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to TOC.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs NEXT.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, NEXT.TO has a market cap of 37.91M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while NEXT.TO trades at $0.21.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas NEXT.TO's P/E ratio is -2.05. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to NEXT.TO's ROE of -0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to NEXT.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs ARS.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, ARS.CN has a market cap of 35.16M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while ARS.CN trades at $0.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas ARS.CN's P/E ratio is -9.75. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to ARS.CN's ROE of -0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to ARS.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs RTG.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, RTG.TO has a market cap of 33.86M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while RTG.TO trades at $0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas RTG.TO's P/E ratio is -3.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to RTG.TO's ROE of -1.03%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to RTG.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs NCF.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, NCF.TO has a market cap of 33.38M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while NCF.TO trades at $0.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas NCF.TO's P/E ratio is -5.50. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to NCF.TO's ROE of -0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to NCF.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs FT.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, FT.TO has a market cap of 31.69M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while FT.TO trades at $0.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas FT.TO's P/E ratio is -6.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to FT.TO's ROE of +0.36%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to FT.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs EGFV.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, EGFV.CN has a market cap of 27.30M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while EGFV.CN trades at $2.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas EGFV.CN's P/E ratio is -100.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to EGFV.CN's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to EGFV.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs AMPS.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, AMPS.CN has a market cap of 26.85M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while AMPS.CN trades at $0.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas AMPS.CN's P/E ratio is -5.90. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to AMPS.CN's ROE of -0.63%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to AMPS.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs NICO.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, NICO.CN has a market cap of 24.98M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while NICO.CN trades at $0.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas NICO.CN's P/E ratio is -14.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to NICO.CN's ROE of +1.00%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to NICO.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs AAN.V Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, AAN.V has a market cap of 22.30M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while AAN.V trades at $0.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas AAN.V's P/E ratio is -2.19. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to AAN.V's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to AAN.V. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs URNM.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, URNM.CN has a market cap of 19.36M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while URNM.CN trades at $0.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas URNM.CN's P/E ratio is -1.11. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to URNM.CN's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to URNM.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs TN.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, TN.CN has a market cap of 18.99M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while TN.CN trades at $0.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas TN.CN's P/E ratio is -7.25. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to TN.CN's ROE of -0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to TN.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs ASND.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, ASND.TO has a market cap of 18.57M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while ASND.TO trades at $0.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas ASND.TO's P/E ratio is -2.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to ASND.TO's ROE of +0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to ASND.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs EXN.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, EXN.TO has a market cap of 18.47M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while EXN.TO trades at $0.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas EXN.TO's P/E ratio is -1.93. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to EXN.TO's ROE of -0.66%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to EXN.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs LVL.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, LVL.CN has a market cap of 18.44M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while LVL.CN trades at $0.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas LVL.CN's P/E ratio is -12.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to LVL.CN's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, Volatility data is not available for a full comparison. MEDA.CN has daily volatility of 5.41 and LVL.CN has daily volatility of N/A.
MEDA.CN vs VOY.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, VOY.CN has a market cap of 18.22M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while VOY.CN trades at $0.56.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas VOY.CN's P/E ratio is 56.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to VOY.CN's ROE of +0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to VOY.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs SAM.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, SAM.TO has a market cap of 17.72M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while SAM.TO trades at $0.27.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas SAM.TO's P/E ratio is -6.62. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to SAM.TO's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to SAM.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs SX.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, SX.CN has a market cap of 16.84M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while SX.CN trades at $0.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas SX.CN's P/E ratio is 1.83. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to SX.CN's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to SX.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs WRX.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, WRX.TO has a market cap of 16.36M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while WRX.TO trades at $0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas WRX.TO's P/E ratio is 4.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to WRX.TO's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to WRX.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs AVL.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, AVL.TO has a market cap of 15.37M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while AVL.TO trades at $0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas AVL.TO's P/E ratio is -2.50. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to AVL.TO's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to AVL.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs SUPR.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, SUPR.CN has a market cap of 15.04M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while SUPR.CN trades at $0.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas SUPR.CN's P/E ratio is -24.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to SUPR.CN's ROE of -116.77%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to SUPR.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs TICO.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, TICO.CN has a market cap of 14.98M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while TICO.CN trades at $0.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas TICO.CN's P/E ratio is -75.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to TICO.CN's ROE of +0.35%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to TICO.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs SLV.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, SLV.CN has a market cap of 14.89M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while SLV.CN trades at $0.26.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas SLV.CN's P/E ratio is -26.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to SLV.CN's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to SLV.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs COSA.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, COSA.CN has a market cap of 14.25M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while COSA.CN trades at $0.31.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas COSA.CN's P/E ratio is -7.75. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to COSA.CN's ROE of -0.59%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to COSA.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs TTX.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, TTX.CN has a market cap of 13.18M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while TTX.CN trades at $0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas TTX.CN's P/E ratio is -0.75. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to TTX.CN's ROE of +0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to TTX.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs SCY.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, SCY.TO has a market cap of 12.46M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while SCY.TO trades at $0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas SCY.TO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to SCY.TO's ROE of -0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to SCY.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs MAXX.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, MAXX.CN has a market cap of 12.26M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while MAXX.CN trades at $0.21.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas MAXX.CN's P/E ratio is -2.28. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to MAXX.CN's ROE of -0.49%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to MAXX.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs PEK.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, PEK.CN has a market cap of 11.32M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while PEK.CN trades at $0.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas PEK.CN's P/E ratio is -17.25. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to PEK.CN's ROE of -0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to PEK.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs PM.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, PM.CN has a market cap of 11.23M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while PM.CN trades at $0.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas PM.CN's P/E ratio is -0.56. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to PM.CN's ROE of -1.85%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to PM.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs NXU.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, NXU.CN has a market cap of 10.76M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while NXU.CN trades at $0.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas NXU.CN's P/E ratio is -15.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to NXU.CN's ROE of -16.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to NXU.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs LIM.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, LIM.CN has a market cap of 9.87M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while LIM.CN trades at $0.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas LIM.CN's P/E ratio is 1.50. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to LIM.CN's ROE of -0.62%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to LIM.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs GDIG.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, GDIG.CN has a market cap of 9.34M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while GDIG.CN trades at $0.27.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas GDIG.CN's P/E ratio is -8.83. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to GDIG.CN's ROE of -0.69%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is less volatile compared to GDIG.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs GAMA.CN Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, GAMA.CN has a market cap of 9.21M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while GAMA.CN trades at $0.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas GAMA.CN's P/E ratio is -1.88. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to GAMA.CN's ROE of -0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to GAMA.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.
MEDA.CN vs SVB.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, SVB.TO has a market cap of 9.00M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while SVB.TO trades at $0.19.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas SVB.TO's P/E ratio is -19.00. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to SVB.TO's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN and SVB.TO have similar daily volatility (5.41).
MEDA.CN vs ELEF.TO Comparison
MEDA.CN plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MEDA.CN stands at 1.73M. In comparison, ELEF.TO has a market cap of 8.92M. Regarding current trading prices, MEDA.CN is priced at $0.48, while ELEF.TO trades at $0.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MEDA.CN currently has a P/E ratio of -1.25, whereas ELEF.TO's P/E ratio is -1.02. In terms of profitability, MEDA.CN's ROE is -6.51%, compared to ELEF.TO's ROE of -0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, MEDA.CN is more volatile compared to ELEF.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MEDA.CN.