QuantumScape Corporation

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, APTV-PA has a market cap of 29.4B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while APTV-PA trades at $108.66.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas APTV-PA's P/E ratio is 92.08. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to APTV-PA's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to APTV-PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, MBLY has a market cap of 15B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while MBLY trades at $18.44.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas MBLY's P/E ratio is -5.02. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MBLY's ROE of -0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to MBLY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, APTV has a market cap of 14.8B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while APTV trades at $67.94.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas APTV's P/E ratio is 11.11. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to APTV's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to APTV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, MGA has a market cap of 10.8B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while MGA trades at $38.28.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas MGA's P/E ratio is 9.55. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MGA's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to MGA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, LKQ has a market cap of 9.6B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while LKQ trades at $37.07.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas LKQ's P/E ratio is 13.78. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to LKQ's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to LKQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, ALV has a market cap of 8.6B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while ALV trades at $111.13.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas ALV's P/E ratio is 12.84. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to ALV's ROE of +0.30%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to ALV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, ALSN has a market cap of 7.9B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while ALSN trades at $94.11.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas ALSN's P/E ratio is 10.89. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to ALSN's ROE of +0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to ALSN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, BWA has a market cap of 7.4B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while BWA trades at $33.60.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas BWA's P/E ratio is 23.66. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to BWA's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to BWA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, MOD has a market cap of 5.3B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while MOD trades at $101.75.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas MOD's P/E ratio is 29.73. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MOD's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to MOD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, LEA has a market cap of 5B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while LEA trades at $94.03.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas LEA's P/E ratio is 10.98. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to LEA's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to LEA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, GNTX has a market cap of 4.9B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while GNTX trades at $21.86.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas GNTX's P/E ratio is 12.78. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to GNTX's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to GNTX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, DORM has a market cap of 3.8B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while DORM trades at $123.48.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas DORM's P/E ratio is 17.74. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to DORM's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to DORM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, BC-PB has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while BC-PB trades at $24.99.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas BC-PB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to BC-PB's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to BC-PB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, BC-PA has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while BC-PA trades at $23.94.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas BC-PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to BC-PA's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to BC-PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, HSAI has a market cap of 3.1B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while HSAI trades at $23.10.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas HSAI's P/E ratio is -2310.00. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to HSAI's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to HSAI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, GT has a market cap of 3B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while GT trades at $10.53.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas GT's P/E ratio is 12.51. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to GT's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to GT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, VC has a market cap of 2.6B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while VC trades at $93.65.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas VC's P/E ratio is 8.77. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to VC's ROE of +0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to VC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, DAN has a market cap of 2.5B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while DAN trades at $17.28.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas DAN's P/E ratio is -71.96. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to DAN's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to DAN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, GTX has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while GTX trades at $10.29.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas GTX's P/E ratio is 8.04. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to GTX's ROE of -0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to GTX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, AEVA has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while AEVA trades at $33.56.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas AEVA's P/E ratio is -11.90. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to AEVA's ROE of -1.33%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to AEVA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, PHIN has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while PHIN trades at $44.56.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas PHIN's P/E ratio is 24.89. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to PHIN's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to PHIN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, ADNT has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while ADNT trades at $19.71.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas ADNT's P/E ratio is -6.10. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to ADNT's ROE of -0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to ADNT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, FOXF has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while FOXF trades at $25.22.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas FOXF's P/E ratio is -4.21. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to FOXF's ROE of -0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to FOXF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, XPEL has a market cap of 991M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while XPEL trades at $35.82.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas XPEL's P/E ratio is 20.83. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to XPEL's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to XPEL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, THRM has a market cap of 864.1M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while THRM trades at $28.00.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas THRM's P/E ratio is 17.61. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to THRM's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to THRM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, PLOW has a market cap of 679.6M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while PLOW trades at $29.29.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas PLOW's P/E ratio is 10.73. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to PLOW's ROE of +0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to PLOW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, SMP has a market cap of 674.2M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while SMP trades at $30.70.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas SMP's P/E ratio is 11.89. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to SMP's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to SMP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, ECX has a market cap of 633.3M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while ECX trades at $1.95.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas ECX's P/E ratio is -5.57. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to ECX's ROE of +0.51%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to ECX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, GTXAP has a market cap of 557.9M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while GTXAP trades at $8.60.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas GTXAP's P/E ratio is 4.44. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to GTXAP's ROE of -0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to GTXAP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, MLR has a market cap of 509.8M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while MLR trades at $44.46.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas MLR's P/E ratio is 9.49. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MLR's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to MLR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, AXL has a market cap of 497.8M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while AXL trades at $4.20.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas AXL's P/E ratio is 23.31. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to AXL's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to AXL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, ALLG has a market cap of 496.9M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while ALLG trades at $1.82.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas ALLG's P/E ratio is -3.96. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to ALLG's ROE of +4.17%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to ALLG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, MNRO has a market cap of 415.7M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while MNRO trades at $13.87.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas MNRO's P/E ratio is -63.05. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MNRO's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to MNRO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, CPS has a market cap of 368.5M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while CPS trades at $21.04.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas CPS's P/E ratio is -8.14. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to CPS's ROE of +0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to CPS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, SES has a market cap of 345.6M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while SES trades at $0.94.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas SES's P/E ratio is -3.14. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to SES's ROE of -0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to SES. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, INVZ has a market cap of 303.4M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while INVZ trades at $1.52.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas INVZ's P/E ratio is -3.32. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to INVZ's ROE of -0.79%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to INVZ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, INVZW has a market cap of 291.6M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while INVZW trades at $0.10.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas INVZW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to INVZW's ROE of -0.79%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is less volatile compared to INVZW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, STRT has a market cap of 250M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while STRT trades at $59.99.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas STRT's P/E ratio is 12.09. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to STRT's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to STRT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, HLLY-WT has a market cap of 246.5M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while HLLY-WT trades at $0.05.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas HLLY-WT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to HLLY-WT's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to HLLY-WT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, HYLN has a market cap of 239.2M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while HYLN trades at $1.37.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas HYLN's P/E ratio is -4.55. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to HYLN's ROE of -0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to HYLN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, HLLY has a market cap of 238.8M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while HLLY trades at $2.01.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas HLLY's P/E ratio is -9.55. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to HLLY's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to HLLY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, MPAA has a market cap of 201.2M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while MPAA trades at $10.35.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas MPAA's P/E ratio is -10.45. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MPAA's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to MPAA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, SRI has a market cap of 177.9M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while SRI trades at $6.40.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas SRI's P/E ratio is -9.98. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to SRI's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to SRI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, XL has a market cap of 164.4M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while XL trades at $1.14.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas XL's P/E ratio is -3.21. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to XL's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to XL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, LAZR has a market cap of 145.5M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while LAZR trades at $2.95.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas LAZR's P/E ratio is -0.47. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to LAZR's ROE of +0.84%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to LAZR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, CAAS has a market cap of 128.8M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while CAAS trades at $4.27.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas CAAS's P/E ratio is 4.45. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to CAAS's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to CAAS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, KNDI has a market cap of 97.2M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while KNDI trades at $1.14.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas KNDI's P/E ratio is -1.92. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to KNDI's ROE of -0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to KNDI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, GGR has a market cap of 73.8M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while GGR trades at $0.25.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas GGR's P/E ratio is -0.54. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to GGR's ROE of -0.60%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to GGR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, SYPR has a market cap of 53.3M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while SYPR trades at $2.32.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas SYPR's P/E ratio is -116.00. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to SYPR's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to SYPR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, WPRT has a market cap of 51.8M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while WPRT trades at $2.97.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas WPRT's P/E ratio is -4.82. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to WPRT's ROE of -0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to WPRT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, CVGI has a market cap of 49.2M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while CVGI trades at $1.41.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas CVGI's P/E ratio is -1.17. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to CVGI's ROE of -0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to CVGI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, MKDW has a market cap of 34.9M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while MKDW trades at $0.24.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas MKDW's P/E ratio is -1.62. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MKDW's ROE of +1.39%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to MKDW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, MKDWW has a market cap of 31.8M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while MKDWW trades at $0.01.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas MKDWW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MKDWW's ROE of +1.39%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to MKDWW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, NCNC has a market cap of 20.2M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while NCNC trades at $0.10.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas NCNC's P/E ratio is -0.70. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to NCNC's ROE of +3.11%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to NCNC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, NCNCW has a market cap of 20.2M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while NCNCW trades at $0.01.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas NCNCW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to NCNCW's ROE of +3.11%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to NCNCW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, LIDR has a market cap of 18.5M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while LIDR trades at $0.96.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas LIDR's P/E ratio is -0.26. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to LIDR's ROE of -1.96%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to LIDR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, ECXWW has a market cap of 17.9M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while ECXWW trades at $0.06.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas ECXWW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to ECXWW's ROE of +0.51%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to ECXWW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, AMV has a market cap of 17.8M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while AMV trades at $0.50.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas AMV's P/E ratio is -0.06. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to AMV's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to AMV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, LIDRW has a market cap of 16.2M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while LIDRW trades at $0.05.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas LIDRW's P/E ratio is -0.02. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to LIDRW's ROE of -1.96%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to LIDRW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, WKSP has a market cap of 15.8M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while WKSP trades at $3.04.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas WKSP's P/E ratio is -0.59. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to WKSP's ROE of -0.93%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to WKSP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, INEO has a market cap of 12.4M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while INEO trades at $1.26.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas INEO's P/E ratio is 8.40. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to INEO's ROE of +0.65%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to INEO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, SAG has a market cap of 10.4M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while SAG trades at $1.01.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas SAG's P/E ratio is 6.73. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to SAG's ROE of +0.65%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to SAG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, FRSX has a market cap of 9.6M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while FRSX trades at $0.50.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas FRSX's P/E ratio is -0.82. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to FRSX's ROE of -1.15%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to FRSX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, SUP has a market cap of 9.6M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while SUP trades at $0.32.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas SUP's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to SUP's ROE of +0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to SUP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, CREV has a market cap of 5.2M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while CREV trades at $2.74.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas CREV's P/E ratio is -0.04. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to CREV's ROE of -0.74%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to CREV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, GGROW has a market cap of 3.4M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while GGROW trades at $0.01.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas GGROW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to GGROW's ROE of -0.60%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to GGROW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, UFAB has a market cap of 2M. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while UFAB trades at $0.17.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas UFAB's P/E ratio is -0.08. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to UFAB's ROE of -0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to UFAB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, WKSPW has a market cap of 575.3K. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while WKSPW trades at $0.03.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas WKSPW's P/E ratio is -0.05. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to WKSPW's ROE of -0.93%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to WKSPW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, CREVW has a market cap of 112.4K. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while CREVW trades at $0.02.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas CREVW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to CREVW's ROE of -1.47%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is less volatile compared to CREVW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, HYZNW has a market cap of 15.5K. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while HYZNW trades at $0.00.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas HYZNW's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to HYZNW's ROE of -2.38%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is less volatile compared to HYZNW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, MTOR has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while MTOR trades at $36.50.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas MTOR's P/E ratio is 11.97. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to MTOR's ROE of +0.38%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to MTOR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, RMO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while RMO trades at $0.35.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas RMO's P/E ratio is -0.29. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to RMO's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to RMO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, VNE has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while VNE trades at $36.95.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas VNE's P/E ratio is -10.74. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to VNE's ROE of -0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to VNE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.

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

Comparing market capitalization, QS stands at 4.3B. In comparison, HZN has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, QS is priced at $7.65, while HZN trades at $1.76.

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

QS currently has a P/E ratio of -8.43, whereas HZN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, QS's ROE is -0.41%, compared to HZN's ROE of +1.26%. Regarding short-term risk, QS is more volatile compared to HZN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for QS.