PACS Group, Inc.
PACS Group, Inc. PACS Peers
See (PACS) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Financial - Conglomerates Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PACS | $10.44 | +0.77% | 1.6B | 17.11 | $0.61 | N/A |
| TPGXL | $24.20 | -0.62% | 18B | N/A | N/A | +3.56% |
| VOYA | $66.70 | +1.48% | 6.4B | 12.47 | $5.35 | +2.73% |
| VOYA-PB | $23.74 | -1.00% | 6.3B | 2.81 | $8.44 | +2.73% |
| BIPH | $16.32 | -0.27% | 6B | N/A | N/A | +7.61% |
| MSDL | $19.47 | +0.18% | 1.7B | 8.93 | $2.18 | +11.32% |
| RILYM | $25.11 | N/A | 753M | N/A | N/A | +4.76% |
| BEAGU | $10.92 | +1.96% | 645.1M | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| RILYO | $25.13 | -0.02% | 573.5M | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| TREE | $35.99 | +2.56% | 487.1M | -8.69 | -$4.14 | N/A |
Stock Comparison
PACS vs TPGXL Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, TPGXL has a market cap of 18B. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while TPGXL trades at $24.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas TPGXL's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to TPGXL's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to TPGXL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs VOYA Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, VOYA has a market cap of 6.4B. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while VOYA trades at $66.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas VOYA's P/E ratio is 12.47. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to VOYA's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to VOYA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs VOYA-PB Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, VOYA-PB has a market cap of 6.3B. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while VOYA-PB trades at $23.74.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas VOYA-PB's P/E ratio is 2.81. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to VOYA-PB's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to VOYA-PB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs BIPH Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, BIPH has a market cap of 6B. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while BIPH trades at $16.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas BIPH's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to BIPH's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to BIPH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs MSDL Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, MSDL has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while MSDL trades at $19.47.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas MSDL's P/E ratio is 8.93. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to MSDL's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to MSDL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RILYM Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RILYM has a market cap of 753M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RILYM trades at $25.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RILYM's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILYM's ROE of +17.01%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to RILYM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs BEAGU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, BEAGU has a market cap of 645.1M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while BEAGU trades at $10.92.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas BEAGU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to BEAGU's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to BEAGU. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RILYO Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RILYO has a market cap of 573.5M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RILYO trades at $25.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RILYO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILYO's ROE of +17.01%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to RILYO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs TREE Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, TREE has a market cap of 487.1M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while TREE trades at $35.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas TREE's P/E ratio is -8.69. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to TREE's ROE of -0.49%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to TREE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs ANSCU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, ANSCU has a market cap of 458.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while ANSCU trades at $10.66.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas ANSCU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to ANSCU's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to ANSCU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs BACQU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, BACQU has a market cap of 364.1M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while BACQU trades at $10.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas BACQU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to BACQU's ROE of -0.60%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to BACQU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs DRDBU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, DRDBU has a market cap of 322.3M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while DRDBU trades at $10.52.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas DRDBU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to DRDBU's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to DRDBU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs POLEU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, POLEU has a market cap of 310.1M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while POLEU trades at $10.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas POLEU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to POLEU's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to POLEU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs HVIIU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, HVIIU has a market cap of 271.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while HVIIU trades at $10.45.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas HVIIU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to HVIIU's ROE of -0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to HVIIU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs HVII Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, HVII has a market cap of 261.8M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while HVII trades at $10.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas HVII's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to HVII's ROE of -0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to HVII. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs FACTU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, FACTU has a market cap of 254.8M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while FACTU trades at $10.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas FACTU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to FACTU's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to FACTU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs PLMKU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, PLMKU has a market cap of 248.7M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while PLMKU trades at $10.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas PLMKU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to PLMKU's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to PLMKU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs NTWOU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, NTWOU has a market cap of 248.6M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while NTWOU trades at $10.31.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas NTWOU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to NTWOU's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to NTWOU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs PLMK Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, PLMK has a market cap of 247.3M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while PLMK trades at $10.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas PLMK's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to PLMK's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to PLMK. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs DRDB Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, DRDB has a market cap of 237.6M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while DRDB trades at $10.33.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas DRDB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to DRDB's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to DRDB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs DMAAU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, DMAAU has a market cap of 237M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while DMAAU trades at $10.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas DMAAU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to DMAAU's ROE of +2.64%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to DMAAU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs BSIIU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, BSIIU has a market cap of 184M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while BSIIU trades at $9.62.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas BSIIU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to BSIIU's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to BSIIU. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs TAVIU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, TAVIU has a market cap of 169.7M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while TAVIU trades at $10.54.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas TAVIU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to TAVIU's ROE of +2.05%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to TAVIU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RANG Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RANG has a market cap of 164.4M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RANG trades at $10.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RANG's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RANG's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to RANG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs SVCCU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, SVCCU has a market cap of 159.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while SVCCU trades at $10.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas SVCCU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to SVCCU's ROE of +25.68%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to SVCCU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs ACOG Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, ACOG has a market cap of 145.6M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while ACOG trades at $9.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas ACOG's P/E ratio is -7.32. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to ACOG's ROE of -0.49%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to ACOG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs SPHA Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, SPHA has a market cap of 111.7M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while SPHA trades at $10.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas SPHA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to SPHA's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to SPHA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RILYG Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RILYG has a market cap of 96.8M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RILYG trades at $10.23.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RILYG's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILYG's ROE of +19.12%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to RILYG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs NOEM Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, NOEM has a market cap of 96.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while NOEM trades at $10.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas NOEM's P/E ratio is 200.70. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to NOEM's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to NOEM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs DTSQ Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, DTSQ has a market cap of 92.6M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while DTSQ trades at $10.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas DTSQ's P/E ratio is 49.52. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to DTSQ's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to DTSQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RMI Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RMI has a market cap of 92M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RMI trades at $14.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RMI's P/E ratio is 16.78. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RMI's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to RMI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RILY Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RILY has a market cap of 91.3M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RILY trades at $3.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RILY's P/E ratio is -0.13. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILY's ROE of +19.12%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to RILY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RILYT Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RILYT has a market cap of 89.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RILYT trades at $6.84.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RILYT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILYT's ROE of +19.12%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to RILYT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RILYK Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RILYK has a market cap of 89.7M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RILYK trades at $19.65.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RILYK's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILYK's ROE of +19.12%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to RILYK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RILYN Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RILYN has a market cap of 88.7M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RILYN trades at $11.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RILYN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILYN's ROE of +19.12%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to RILYN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs FLDD Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, FLDD has a market cap of 85.6M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while FLDD trades at $6.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas FLDD's P/E ratio is -75.13. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to FLDD's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to FLDD. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs YHNA Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, YHNA has a market cap of 80M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while YHNA trades at $10.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas YHNA's P/E ratio is 41.28. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to YHNA's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to YHNA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs CAPNU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, CAPNU has a market cap of 74.8M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while CAPNU trades at $10.23.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas CAPNU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to CAPNU's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to CAPNU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RILYL Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RILYL has a market cap of 71.7M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RILYL trades at $2.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RILYL's P/E ratio is 0.39. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILYL's ROE of +19.12%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to RILYL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RILYP Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RILYP has a market cap of 66.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RILYP trades at $2.17.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RILYP's P/E ratio is 0.36. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILYP's ROE of +19.12%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to RILYP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs BAYAU Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, BAYAU has a market cap of 58.7M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while BAYAU trades at $10.82.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas BAYAU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to BAYAU's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to BAYAU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs ATMCR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, ATMCR has a market cap of 39.3M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while ATMCR trades at $0.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas ATMCR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to ATMCR's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to ATMCR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs DRDBW Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, DRDBW has a market cap of 12.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while DRDBW trades at $0.46.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas DRDBW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to DRDBW's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to DRDBW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs APLMW Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, APLMW has a market cap of 7.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while APLMW trades at $0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas APLMW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to APLMW's ROE of -2.11%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to APLMW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs PLMKW Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, PLMKW has a market cap of 5.3M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while PLMKW trades at $0.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas PLMKW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to PLMKW's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to PLMKW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs MLACR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, MLACR has a market cap of 5.1M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while MLACR trades at $0.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas MLACR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to MLACR's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to MLACR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RANGR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RANGR has a market cap of 3.5M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RANGR trades at $0.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RANGR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RANGR's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to RANGR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs TENKR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, TENKR has a market cap of 3.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while TENKR trades at $0.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas TENKR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to TENKR's ROE of -0.32%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to TENKR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs NOEMR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, NOEMR has a market cap of 1.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while NOEMR trades at $0.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas NOEMR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to NOEMR's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to NOEMR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs EURKR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, EURKR has a market cap of 1.7M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while EURKR trades at $0.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas EURKR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to EURKR's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to EURKR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs CAPNR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, CAPNR has a market cap of 1.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while CAPNR trades at $0.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas CAPNR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to CAPNR's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to CAPNR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs YHNAR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, YHNAR has a market cap of 1.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while YHNAR trades at $0.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas YHNAR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to YHNAR's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to YHNAR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs FSHPR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, FSHPR has a market cap of 1.1M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while FSHPR trades at $0.12.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas FSHPR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to FSHPR's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to FSHPR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs DTSQR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, DTSQR has a market cap of 963.4K. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while DTSQR trades at $0.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas DTSQR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to DTSQR's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to DTSQR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs EMCGR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, EMCGR has a market cap of 562.5K. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while EMCGR trades at $0.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas EMCGR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to EMCGR's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to EMCGR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs HVIIR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, HVIIR has a market cap of 545.2K. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while HVIIR trades at $0.36.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas HVIIR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to HVIIR's ROE of -0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to HVIIR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs BRACR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, BRACR has a market cap of 536.9K. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while BRACR trades at $0.19.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas BRACR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to BRACR's ROE of -0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to BRACR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs COOTW Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, COOTW has a market cap of 414.1K. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while COOTW trades at $0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas COOTW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to COOTW's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to COOTW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs BSLKW Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, BSLKW has a market cap of 34K. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while BSLKW trades at $0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas BSLKW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to BSLKW's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to BSLKW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs SPHAR Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, SPHAR has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while SPHAR trades at $0.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas SPHAR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to SPHAR's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to SPHAR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs BIPJ Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, BIPJ has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while BIPJ trades at $23.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas BIPJ's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to BIPJ's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to BIPJ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RILYH Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RILYH has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RILYH trades at $25.52.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RILYH's P/E ratio is 43.70. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILYH's ROE of +19.12%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to RILYH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs LCAAW Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, LCAAW has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while LCAAW trades at $0.85.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas LCAAW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to LCAAW's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is less volatile compared to LCAAW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.
PACS vs RILYI Comparison
PACS plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, PACS stands at 1.6B. In comparison, RILYI has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $10.44, while RILYI trades at $25.64.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
PACS currently has a P/E ratio of 17.11, whereas RILYI's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILYI's ROE of +2.01%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to RILYI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.