Sunrun Inc.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, FSLR has a market cap of 13.59B. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while FSLR trades at $126.76.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas FSLR's P/E ratio is 10.77. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to FSLR's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to FSLR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SMTGY has a market cap of 6.70B. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SMTGY trades at $1.93.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SMTGY's P/E ratio is -5.22. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SMTGY's ROE of -0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to SMTGY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, NXT has a market cap of 6.16B. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while NXT trades at $42.89.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas NXT's P/E ratio is 10.59. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to NXT's ROE of +0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to NXT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, ENPH has a market cap of 5.76B. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while ENPH trades at $43.87.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas ENPH's P/E ratio is 40.25. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to ENPH's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to ENPH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, XISHY has a market cap of 3.10B. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while XISHY trades at $6.83.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas XISHY's P/E ratio is 23.55. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to XISHY's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to XISHY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, XNYIF has a market cap of 3.06B. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while XNYIF trades at $0.34.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas XNYIF's P/E ratio is 33.69. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to XNYIF's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to XNYIF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, GCPEF has a market cap of 2.80B. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while GCPEF trades at $0.10.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas GCPEF's P/E ratio is -5.00. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to GCPEF's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to GCPEF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SEDG has a market cap of 848.45M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SEDG trades at $14.37.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SEDG's P/E ratio is -0.45. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SEDG's ROE of -1.19%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to SEDG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, ARRY has a market cap of 785.44M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while ARRY trades at $5.15.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas ARRY's P/E ratio is -2.64. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to ARRY's ROE of -0.50%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to ARRY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, CSIQ has a market cap of 592.93M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while CSIQ trades at $8.96.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas CSIQ's P/E ratio is 16.59. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to CSIQ's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to CSIQ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SHLS has a market cap of 521.02M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SHLS trades at $3.12.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SHLS's P/E ratio is 22.29. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SHLS's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SHLS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SMTGF has a market cap of 491.35M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SMTGF trades at $14.16.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SMTGF's P/E ratio is -3.70. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SMTGF's ROE of -0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SMTGF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, GRMZF has a market cap of 261.05M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while GRMZF trades at $11.30.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas GRMZF's P/E ratio is 21.32. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to GRMZF's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to GRMZF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, JKS has a market cap of 231.02M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while JKS trades at $17.89.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas JKS's P/E ratio is -3.61. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to JKS's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to JKS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, TOYO has a market cap of 138.86M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while TOYO trades at $2.98.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas TOYO's P/E ratio is 4.20. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to TOYO's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to TOYO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, CSLR has a market cap of 133.15M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while CSLR trades at $1.81.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas CSLR's P/E ratio is -1.50. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to CSLR's ROE of +1.32%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to CSLR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, HYSR has a market cap of 121.25M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while HYSR trades at $0.02.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas HYSR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to HYSR's ROE of -0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to HYSR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, ZEO has a market cap of 79.80M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while ZEO trades at $1.62.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas ZEO's P/E ratio is 0.26. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to ZEO's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to ZEO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SPRQF has a market cap of 75.88M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SPRQF trades at $0.65.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SPRQF's P/E ratio is -10.83. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SPRQF's ROE of -0.98%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SPRQF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, CSSXF has a market cap of 75.63M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while CSSXF trades at $0.03.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas CSSXF's P/E ratio is -3.00. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to CSSXF's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to CSSXF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SOL has a market cap of 71.49M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SOL trades at $1.39.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SOL's P/E ratio is -5.80. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SOL's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SOL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, PN has a market cap of 68.72M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while PN trades at $2.55.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas PN's P/E ratio is 127.25. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to PN's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to PN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SMXT has a market cap of 52.25M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SMXT trades at $1.14.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SMXT's P/E ratio is -1.44. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SMXT's ROE of +4.75%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SMXT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, TYGO has a market cap of 49.88M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while TYGO trades at $0.81.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas TYGO's P/E ratio is -0.77. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to TYGO's ROE of -1.78%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to TYGO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, UGEIF has a market cap of 49.16M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while UGEIF trades at $1.46.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas UGEIF's P/E ratio is -3.17. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to UGEIF's ROE of +0.82%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to UGEIF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, MAXN has a market cap of 42.66M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while MAXN trades at $2.79.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas MAXN's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to MAXN's ROE of +3.76%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to MAXN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, FTCI has a market cap of 38.92M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while FTCI trades at $3.03.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas FTCI's P/E ratio is -0.82. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to FTCI's ROE of -1.60%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to FTCI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, CVUEF has a market cap of 36.37M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while CVUEF trades at $0.14.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas CVUEF's P/E ratio is -4.52. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to CVUEF's ROE of -1.47%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to CVUEF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SPRU has a market cap of 32.99M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SPRU trades at $1.83.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SPRU's P/E ratio is -0.48. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SPRU's ROE of -0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SPRU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, NEWH has a market cap of 24.59M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while NEWH trades at $0.03.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas NEWH's P/E ratio is -3.49. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to NEWH's ROE of -0.67%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to NEWH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SPI has a market cap of 24.21M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SPI trades at $0.77.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SPI's P/E ratio is -0.80. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SPI's ROE of -1.93%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to SPI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, NOVA has a market cap of 24.12M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while NOVA trades at $0.19.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas NOVA's P/E ratio is -0.06. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to NOVA's ROE of -0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to NOVA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, FLDI has a market cap of 22.80M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while FLDI trades at $6.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas FLDI's P/E ratio is -750.00. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to FLDI's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to FLDI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, BEEM has a market cap of 21.85M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while BEEM trades at $1.41.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas BEEM's P/E ratio is -1.83. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to BEEM's ROE of -0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to BEEM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, VVPR has a market cap of 14.74M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while VVPR trades at $3.32.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas VVPR's P/E ratio is -0.26. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to VVPR's ROE of +1.11%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to VVPR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, PXPC has a market cap of 12.01M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while PXPC trades at $0.04.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas PXPC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to PXPC's ROE of -0.85%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to PXPC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, VSTE has a market cap of 11.21M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while VSTE trades at $0.37.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas VSTE's P/E ratio is 0.01. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to VSTE's ROE of +15.56%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to VSTE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SPWR has a market cap of 9.06M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SPWR trades at $0.12.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SPWR's P/E ratio is -0.10. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SPWR's ROE of +64.69%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to SPWR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, CBUTF has a market cap of 6.86M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while CBUTF trades at $0.09.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas CBUTF's P/E ratio is -0.56. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to CBUTF's ROE of +0.76%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to CBUTF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, PEGY has a market cap of 6.06M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while PEGY trades at $3.34.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas PEGY's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to PEGY's ROE of -0.85%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to PEGY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, TURB has a market cap of 5.80M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while TURB trades at $2.63.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas TURB's P/E ratio is -7.74. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to TURB's ROE of -0.85%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to TURB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SEHLF has a market cap of 4.65M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SEHLF trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SEHLF's P/E ratio is -0.14. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SEHLF's ROE of -0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SEHLF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, NTCXF has a market cap of 4.11M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while NTCXF trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas NTCXF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to NTCXF's ROE of +0.92%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to NTCXF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SAENF has a market cap of 3.82M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SAENF trades at $0.01.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SAENF's P/E ratio is -1.30. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SAENF's ROE of +0.62%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SAENF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SUNW has a market cap of 3.41M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SUNW trades at $0.06.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SUNW's P/E ratio is -0.04. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SUNW's ROE of -1.34%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to SUNW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, ASTI has a market cap of 3.07M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while ASTI trades at $1.80.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas ASTI's P/E ratio is -0.17. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to ASTI's ROE of -4.40%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to ASTI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, TSPG has a market cap of 2.39M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while TSPG trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas TSPG's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to TSPG's ROE of -1.05%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to TSPG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, AACTF has a market cap of 2.27M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while AACTF trades at $0.01.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas AACTF's P/E ratio is -1.13. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to AACTF's ROE of -0.44%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to AACTF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, ISUN has a market cap of 2.25M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while ISUN trades at $0.05.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas ISUN's P/E ratio is -0.07. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to ISUN's ROE of -0.87%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to ISUN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, PTOS has a market cap of 1.65M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while PTOS trades at $0.01.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas PTOS's P/E ratio is -1.30. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to PTOS's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to PTOS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, BEEMW has a market cap of 1.33M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while BEEMW trades at $0.10.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas BEEMW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to BEEMW's ROE of -0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to BEEMW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, VSTEW has a market cap of 1.13M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while VSTEW trades at $0.04.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas VSTEW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to VSTEW's ROE of +15.56%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to VSTEW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SIRC has a market cap of 1.10M. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SIRC trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SIRC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SIRC's ROE of +1.76%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SIRC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, QCLSF has a market cap of 796730.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while QCLSF trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas QCLSF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to QCLSF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to QCLSF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, ANTGF has a market cap of 578001.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while ANTGF trades at $0.01.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas ANTGF's P/E ratio is -0.56. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to ANTGF's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to ANTGF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, ZEOWW has a market cap of 430308.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while ZEOWW trades at $0.05.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas ZEOWW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to ZEOWW's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to ZEOWW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, PSWW has a market cap of 317886.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while PSWW trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas PSWW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to PSWW's ROE of -0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to PSWW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, UNSS has a market cap of 60055.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while UNSS trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas UNSS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to UNSS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to UNSS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SPSO has a market cap of 43283.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SPSO trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SPSO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SPSO's ROE of -0.81%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SPSO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, ABCE has a market cap of 26052.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while ABCE trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas ABCE's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to ABCE's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to ABCE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, OPVS has a market cap of 24025.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while OPVS trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas OPVS's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to OPVS's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to OPVS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, CHJI has a market cap of 19389.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while CHJI trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas CHJI's P/E ratio is 0.03. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to CHJI's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to CHJI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SOEN has a market cap of 18307.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SOEN trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SOEN's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SOEN's ROE of -0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SOEN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, NTAC has a market cap of 18114.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while NTAC trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas NTAC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to NTAC's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to NTAC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SRWRF has a market cap of 17875.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SRWRF trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SRWRF's P/E ratio is -0.02. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SRWRF's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to SRWRF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SNRS has a market cap of 16606.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SNRS trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SNRS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SNRS's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SNRS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, ISUNQ has a market cap of 9477.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while ISUNQ trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas ISUNQ's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to ISUNQ's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to ISUNQ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, XDSL has a market cap of 8498.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while XDSL trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas XDSL's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to XDSL's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to XDSL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, MBCI has a market cap of 7030.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while MBCI trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas MBCI's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to MBCI's ROE of -1.27%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to MBCI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, SUNWQ has a market cap of 5678.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while SUNWQ trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas SUNWQ's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to SUNWQ's ROE of -0.41%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to SUNWQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, VSOLF has a market cap of 4607.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while VSOLF trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas VSOLF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to VSOLF's ROE of -2.90%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to VSOLF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, APVNF has a market cap of 3135.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while APVNF trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas APVNF's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to APVNF's ROE of -0.60%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to APVNF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, PPRW has a market cap of 3075.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while PPRW trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas PPRW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to PPRW's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to PPRW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, GRYG has a market cap of 3041.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while GRYG trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas GRYG's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to GRYG's ROE of +0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to GRYG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, GSLO has a market cap of 1309.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while GSLO trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas GSLO's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to GSLO's ROE of +20.08%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to GSLO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, EDYYF has a market cap of 750.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while EDYYF trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas EDYYF's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to EDYYF's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to EDYYF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, EBODF has a market cap of 244.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while EBODF trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas EBODF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to EBODF's ROE of -0.74%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to EBODF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, IXEH has a market cap of 72.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while IXEH trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas IXEH's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to IXEH's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is more volatile compared to IXEH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.

RUN plays a significant role within the Energy sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, RUN stands at 1.60B. In comparison, KOVR has a market cap of 44.00. Regarding current trading prices, RUN is priced at $7.06, while KOVR trades at $0.00.

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

RUN currently has a P/E ratio of -0.55, whereas KOVR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RUN's ROE is -0.69%, compared to KOVR's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, RUN is less volatile compared to KOVR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RUN.