PACS Group, Inc.
PACS Group, Inc. (PACS) Stock Competitors & Peer Comparison
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 | $11.69 | +2.27% | 1.8B | 19.21 | $0.61 | N/A |
| TPGXL | $25.59 | +0.47% | 21.1B | N/A | N/A | +2.99% |
| VOYA-PB | $24.20 | +1.04% | 7B | 2.87 | $8.44 | +2.50% |
| VOYA | $71.86 | +0.08% | 6.9B | 13.43 | $5.35 | +2.50% |
| BIPH | $16.85 | +1.32% | 6.2B | N/A | N/A | +7.39% |
| MSDL | $19.30 | -1.58% | 1.7B | 8.85 | $2.18 | +11.38% |
| RILYM | $25.11 | +0.00% | 753M | N/A | N/A | +3.17% |
| TREE | $49.06 | -2.54% | 664M | -11.85 | -$4.14 | N/A |
| BEAGU | $10.74 | +0.00% | 633.6M | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| RILYO | $25.13 | -0.02% | 573.5M | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Stock Comparison
PACS vs TPGXL Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, TPGXL has a market cap of 21.1B. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while TPGXL trades at $25.59.
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 19.21, 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.Check TPGXL's competition here
PACS vs VOYA-PB Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, VOYA-PB has a market cap of 7B. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while VOYA-PB 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 19.21, whereas VOYA-PB's P/E ratio is 2.87. 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.Check VOYA-PB's competition here
PACS vs VOYA Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, VOYA has a market cap of 6.9B. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while VOYA trades at $71.86.
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 19.21, whereas VOYA's P/E ratio is 13.43. 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.Check VOYA's competition here
PACS vs BIPH Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, BIPH has a market cap of 6.2B. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while BIPH trades at $16.85.
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 19.21, 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.Check BIPH's competition here
PACS vs MSDL Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, MSDL has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while MSDL trades at $19.30.
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 19.21, whereas MSDL's P/E ratio is 8.85. 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.Check MSDL's competition here
PACS vs RILYM Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RILYM has a market cap of 753M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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.Check RILYM's competition here
PACS vs TREE Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, TREE has a market cap of 664M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while TREE trades at $49.06.
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 19.21, whereas TREE's P/E ratio is -11.85. 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.Check TREE's competition here
PACS vs BEAGU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, BEAGU has a market cap of 633.6M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while BEAGU trades at $10.74.
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 19.21, 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 more volatile compared to BEAGU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check BEAGU's competition here
PACS vs RILYO Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RILYO has a market cap of 573.5M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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.Check RILYO's competition here
PACS vs ANSCU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, ANSCU has a market cap of 463.1M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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.Check ANSCU's competition here
PACS vs BACQU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, BACQU has a market cap of 398.3M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while BACQU trades at $10.59.
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 19.21, 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.Check BACQU's competition here
PACS vs POLEU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, POLEU has a market cap of 339.7M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while POLEU 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 19.21, 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.Check POLEU's competition here
PACS vs DRDBU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, DRDBU has a market cap of 326.1M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while DRDBU trades at $10.74.
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 19.21, 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.Check DRDBU's competition here
PACS vs PLMKU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, PLMKU has a market cap of 278.4M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while PLMKU trades at $10.36.
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 19.21, 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.Check PLMKU's competition here
PACS vs HVIIU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, HVIIU has a market cap of 273.1M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while HVIIU trades at $10.48.
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 19.21, 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.Check HVIIU's competition here
PACS vs HVII Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, HVII has a market cap of 264.7M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while HVII trades at $10.17.
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 19.21, 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.Check HVII's competition here
PACS vs DMAAU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, DMAAU has a market cap of 251.6M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while DMAAU trades at $10.74.
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 19.21, 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 +0.02%. 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.Check DMAAU's competition here
PACS vs NTWOU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, NTWOU has a market cap of 251.3M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while NTWOU 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 19.21, 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.Check NTWOU's competition here
PACS vs FACTU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, FACTU has a market cap of 250.5M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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 +0.17%. 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.Check FACTU's competition here
PACS vs PLMK Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, PLMK has a market cap of 249.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while PLMK 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 19.21, 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.Check PLMK's competition here
PACS vs DRDB Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, DRDB has a market cap of 236.4M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while DRDB 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 19.21, 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.Check DRDB's competition here
PACS vs RILYL Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RILYL has a market cap of 191.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while RILYL trades at $6.25.
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 19.21, whereas RILYL's P/E ratio is 1.04. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILYL's ROE of +4.72%. 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.Check RILYL's competition here
PACS vs RILYP Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RILYP has a market cap of 183.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while RILYP trades at $5.99.
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 19.21, whereas RILYP's P/E ratio is 1.00. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILYP's ROE of +4.72%. 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.Check RILYP's competition here
PACS vs SVCCU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, SVCCU has a market cap of 176.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while SVCCU 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 19.21, 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 +0.02%. 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.Check SVCCU's competition here
PACS vs RILY Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RILY has a market cap of 170.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while RILY trades at $5.58.
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 19.21, whereas RILY's P/E ratio is -0.24. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to RILY's ROE of +4.72%. 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.Check RILY's competition here
PACS vs RILYK Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RILYK has a market cap of 165.5M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while RILYK trades at $22.78.
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 19.21, 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 +4.72%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to RILYK. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check RILYK's competition here
PACS vs RANG Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RANG has a market cap of 165.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while RANG 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 19.21, 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.Check RANG's competition here
PACS vs RILYN Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RILYN has a market cap of 164.1M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while RILYN trades at $18.63.
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 19.21, 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 +4.72%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to RILYN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check RILYN's competition here
PACS vs TAVIU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, TAVIU has a market cap of 163.4M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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.Check TAVIU's competition here
PACS vs RILYG Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RILYG has a market cap of 163.1M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while RILYG trades at $16.77.
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 19.21, 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 +4.72%. 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.Check RILYG's competition here
PACS vs RILYT Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RILYT has a market cap of 162M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while RILYT trades at $11.07.
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 19.21, 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 +4.72%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to RILYT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check RILYT's competition here
PACS vs ACOG Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, ACOG has a market cap of 155.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while ACOG trades at $9.97.
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 19.21, whereas ACOG's P/E ratio is -7.80. In terms of profitability, PACS's ROE is +0.11%, compared to ACOG's ROE of -0.49%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to ACOG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check ACOG's competition here
PACS vs BSIIU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, BSIIU has a market cap of 152.8M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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 +0.02%. 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.Check BSIIU's competition here
PACS vs SPHA Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, SPHA has a market cap of 111.7M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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.Check SPHA's competition here
PACS vs NOEM Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, NOEM has a market cap of 96.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while NOEM trades at $10.08.
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 19.21, whereas NOEM's P/E ratio is 252.75. 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.Check NOEM's competition here
PACS vs DTSQ Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, DTSQ has a market cap of 93.5M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, whereas DTSQ's P/E ratio is 50.00. 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.Check DTSQ's competition here
PACS vs CAPNU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, CAPNU has a market cap of 90.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while CAPNU 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 19.21, 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.Check CAPNU's competition here
PACS vs RMI Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RMI has a market cap of 88.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while RMI trades at $13.94.
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 19.21, whereas RMI's P/E ratio is 16.21. 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.Check RMI's competition here
PACS vs FLDD Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, FLDD has a market cap of 85.6M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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.Check FLDD's competition here
PACS vs YHNA Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, YHNA has a market cap of 80.3M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while YHNA trades at $10.36.
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 19.21, whereas YHNA's P/E ratio is 41.42. 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.Check YHNA's competition here
PACS vs BAYAU Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, BAYAU has a market cap of 58.6M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while BAYAU trades at $11.35.
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 19.21, 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 +0.04%. 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.Check BAYAU's competition here
PACS vs COOTW Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, COOTW has a market cap of 13.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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 +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, PACS is more volatile compared to COOTW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check COOTW's competition here
PACS vs DRDBW Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, DRDBW has a market cap of 11.5M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while DRDBW trades at $0.50.
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 19.21, 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 +0.02%. 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.Check DRDBW's competition here
PACS vs APLMW Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, APLMW has a market cap of 8M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while APLMW trades at $0.03.
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 19.21, whereas APLMW's P/E ratio is -0.01. 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.Check APLMW's competition here
PACS vs MLACR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, MLACR has a market cap of 6.8M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while MLACR trades at $0.24.
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 19.21, 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.Check MLACR's competition here
PACS vs HVIIR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, HVIIR has a market cap of 5.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while HVIIR trades at $0.30.
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 19.21, 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.Check HVIIR's competition here
PACS vs BSLKW Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, BSLKW has a market cap of 5.5M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while BSLKW trades at $0.03.
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 19.21, 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 +0.56%. 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.Check BSLKW's competition here
PACS vs PLMKW Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, PLMKW has a market cap of 4.8M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while PLMKW trades at $0.27.
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 19.21, 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 more volatile compared to PLMKW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check PLMKW's competition here
PACS vs TENKR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, TENKR has a market cap of 3.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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.Check TENKR's competition here
PACS vs RANGR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RANGR has a market cap of 2.9M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while RANGR 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 19.21, 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.Check RANGR's competition here
PACS vs NOEMR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, NOEMR has a market cap of 2.4M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while NOEMR 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 19.21, 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.Check NOEMR's competition here
PACS vs EURKR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, EURKR has a market cap of 1.6M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while EURKR trades at $0.25.
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 19.21, 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.Check EURKR's competition here
PACS vs DTSQR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, DTSQR has a market cap of 1.5M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while DTSQR 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 19.21, 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 less volatile compared to DTSQR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check DTSQR's competition here
PACS vs CAPNR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, CAPNR has a market cap of 1.5M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while CAPNR 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 19.21, 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 more volatile compared to CAPNR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check CAPNR's competition here
PACS vs YHNAR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, YHNAR has a market cap of 1.2M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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 more volatile compared to YHNAR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check YHNAR's competition here
PACS vs FSHPR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, FSHPR has a market cap of 1.1M. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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 less volatile compared to FSHPR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check FSHPR's competition here
PACS vs ATMCR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, ATMCR has a market cap of 971.4K. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while ATMCR 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 19.21, 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 +0.04%. 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.Check ATMCR's competition here
PACS vs BRACR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, BRACR has a market cap of 536.9K. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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.Check BRACR's competition here
PACS vs EMCGR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, EMCGR has a market cap of 452K. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while EMCGR trades at $0.10.
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 19.21, 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 less volatile compared to EMCGR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check EMCGR's competition here
PACS vs RILYI Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RILYI has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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.Check RILYI's competition here
PACS vs RILYH Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, RILYH has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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 +4.72%. 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.Check RILYH's competition here
PACS vs BIPJ Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, BIPJ has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, while BIPJ trades at $24.53.
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 19.21, 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 more volatile compared to BIPJ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for PACS.Check BIPJ's competition here
PACS vs SPHAR Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, SPHAR has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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.Check SPHAR's competition here
PACS vs LCAAW Comparison July 2025
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 1.8B. In comparison, LCAAW has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, PACS is priced at $11.69, 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 19.21, 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.Check LCAAW's competition here