Somatic Systems, Inc.
Somatic Systems, Inc. SMAS Peers
See (SMAS) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Medical - Care Facilities Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMAS | $0.00 | N/A | 1.5M | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| FSNUY | $12.68 | -1.32% | 114.3B | 23.92 | $0.53 | +1.88% |
| RVLWF | $0.04 | +97.97% | 38.9B | -0.30 | -$0.13 | N/A |
| FSNUF | $50.29 | N/A | 28.3B | 23.61 | $2.13 | +1.81% |
| FMCQF | $57.56 | +3.05% | 16.9B | 23.88 | $2.41 | +2.46% |
| BDUUY | $32.33 | N/A | 12.8B | 28.36 | $1.14 | +2.79% |
| JDHIY | $3.25 | +100.00% | 10.4B | 18.06 | $0.18 | N/A |
| JDHIF | $3.23 | N/A | 10.3B | 26.92 | $0.12 | N/A |
| BDULF | $0.62 | N/A | 9.9B | 20.67 | $0.03 | +3.58% |
| IHHHF | $1.10 | -7.56% | 9.7B | 15.71 | $0.07 | +1.24% |
Stock Comparison
SMAS vs FSNUY Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, FSNUY has a market cap of 114.3B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while FSNUY trades at $12.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FSNUY's P/E ratio is 23.92. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to FSNUY's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to FSNUY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs RVLWF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, RVLWF has a market cap of 38.9B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while RVLWF trades at $0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RVLWF's P/E ratio is -0.30. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to RVLWF's ROE of +3.95%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to RVLWF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs FSNUF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, FSNUF has a market cap of 28.3B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while FSNUF trades at $50.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FSNUF's P/E ratio is 23.61. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to FSNUF's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to FSNUF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs FMCQF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, FMCQF has a market cap of 16.9B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while FMCQF trades at $57.56.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FMCQF's P/E ratio is 23.88. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to FMCQF's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to FMCQF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs BDUUY Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, BDUUY has a market cap of 12.8B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while BDUUY trades at $32.33.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BDUUY's P/E ratio is 28.36. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to BDUUY's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to BDUUY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs JDHIY Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, JDHIY has a market cap of 10.4B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while JDHIY trades at $3.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas JDHIY's P/E ratio is 18.06. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to JDHIY's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to JDHIY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs JDHIF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, JDHIF has a market cap of 10.3B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while JDHIF trades at $3.23.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas JDHIF's P/E ratio is 26.92. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to JDHIF's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to JDHIF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs BDULF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, BDULF has a market cap of 9.9B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while BDULF trades at $0.62.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BDULF's P/E ratio is 20.67. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to BDULF's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to BDULF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs IHHHF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, IHHHF has a market cap of 9.7B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while IHHHF trades at $1.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IHHHF's P/E ratio is 15.71. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to IHHHF's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to IHHHF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs BDUUF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, BDUUF has a market cap of 9.5B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while BDUUF trades at $0.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BDUUF's P/E ratio is 20.00. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to BDUUF's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to BDUUF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs RMSYF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, RMSYF has a market cap of 5.8B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while RMSYF trades at $25.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RMSYF's P/E ratio is 505.00. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to RMSYF's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to RMSYF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs RMYHY Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, RMYHY has a market cap of 5.6B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while RMYHY trades at $5.66.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RMYHY's P/E ratio is 566.00. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to RMYHY's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to RMYHY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs BUGDF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, BUGDF has a market cap of 5B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while BUGDF trades at $6.31.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BUGDF's P/E ratio is 24.27. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to BUGDF's ROE of +0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to BUGDF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs ANHGY Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, ANHGY has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while ANHGY trades at $5.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ANHGY's P/E ratio is 23.87. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to ANHGY's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to ANHGY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs BUHPF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, BUHPF has a market cap of 3.3B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while BUHPF trades at $4.85.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BUHPF's P/E ratio is 17.96. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to BUHPF's ROE of +0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to BUHPF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs MCVEF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, MCVEF has a market cap of 3B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while MCVEF trades at $19.83.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MCVEF's P/E ratio is 86.22. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to MCVEF's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to MCVEF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs ORPEF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, ORPEF has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while ORPEF trades at $14.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ORPEF's P/E ratio is 0.03. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to ORPEF's ROE of +0.91%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is less volatile compared to ORPEF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs MCVEY Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, MCVEY has a market cap of 2.2B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while MCVEY trades at $16.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MCVEY's P/E ratio is 40.37. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to MCVEY's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to MCVEY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs TTALF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, TTALF has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while TTALF trades at $12.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TTALF's P/E ratio is 19.33. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to TTALF's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to TTALF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs RYHTY Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, RYHTY has a market cap of 1.5B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while RYHTY trades at $7.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RYHTY's P/E ratio is -3.97. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to RYHTY's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to RYHTY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs LWSCF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, LWSCF has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while LWSCF trades at $13.59.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LWSCF's P/E ratio is 45.31. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to LWSCF's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to LWSCF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs RHCGF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, RHCGF has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while RHCGF trades at $1.21.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RHCGF's P/E ratio is -3.27. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to RHCGF's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to RHCGF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs LTGHF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, LTGHF has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while LTGHF trades at $0.82.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LTGHF's P/E ratio is 11.70. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to LTGHF's ROE of +0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to LTGHF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs LTGHY Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, LTGHY has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while LTGHY trades at $3.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LTGHY's P/E ratio is -22.71. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to LTGHY's ROE of +0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to LTGHY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs RAFLF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, RAFLF has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while RAFLF trades at $0.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RAFLF's P/E ratio is 20.00. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to RAFLF's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to RAFLF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs RHKJF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, RHKJF has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while RHKJF trades at $15.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RHKJF's P/E ratio is 21.55. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to RHKJF's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to RHKJF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs RKAGY Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, RKAGY has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while RKAGY trades at $7.65.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RKAGY's P/E ratio is 22.50. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to RKAGY's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to RKAGY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs NWKHY Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, NWKHY has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while NWKHY trades at $7.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NWKHY's P/E ratio is 11.64. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to NWKHY's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to NWKHY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs EXETF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, EXETF has a market cap of 878.4M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while EXETF trades at $10.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas EXETF's P/E ratio is 16.38. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to EXETF's ROE of +0.66%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to EXETF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs JXFGF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, JXFGF has a market cap of 755.6M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while JXFGF trades at $0.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas JXFGF's P/E ratio is 14.00. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to JXFGF's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to JXFGF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs WHTCF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, WHTCF has a market cap of 729.8M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while WHTCF trades at $2.88.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas WHTCF's P/E ratio is -36.05. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to WHTCF's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to WHTCF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs KDGTF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, KDGTF has a market cap of 675.1M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while KDGTF trades at $0.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas KDGTF's P/E ratio is -1.67. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to KDGTF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to KDGTF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs WFHG Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, WFHG has a market cap of 470.6M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while WFHG trades at $7.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas WFHG's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to WFHG's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to WFHG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs ORRRY Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, ORRRY has a market cap of 371.5M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while ORRRY trades at $0.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ORRRY's P/E ratio is -0.33. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to ORRRY's ROE of +0.91%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to ORRRY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs BTMDW Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, BTMDW has a market cap of 292.9M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while BTMDW trades at $1.61.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BTMDW's P/E ratio is 0.05. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to BTMDW's ROE of -0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to BTMDW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs MFCSF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, MFCSF has a market cap of 223M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while MFCSF trades at $11.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MFCSF's P/E ratio is 7.53. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to MFCSF's ROE of +0.84%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to MFCSF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs MKLNF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, MKLNF has a market cap of 217.6M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while MKLNF trades at $11.73.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MKLNF's P/E ratio is 19.23. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to MKLNF's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to MKLNF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs EVGRF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, EVGRF has a market cap of 172.2M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while EVGRF trades at $0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas EVGRF's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to EVGRF's ROE of +0.67%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to EVGRF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs CHHHF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, CHHHF has a market cap of 136.1M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while CHHHF trades at $2.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CHHHF's P/E ratio is -43.20. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to CHHHF's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to CHHHF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs VTIAF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, VTIAF has a market cap of 79.6M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while VTIAF trades at $4.57.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VTIAF's P/E ratio is -5.71. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to VTIAF's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to VTIAF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs MCIOF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, MCIOF has a market cap of 54M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while MCIOF trades at $0.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MCIOF's P/E ratio is -1.22. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to MCIOF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to MCIOF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs ASSF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, ASSF has a market cap of 45.3M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while ASSF trades at $1.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ASSF's P/E ratio is -33.33. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to ASSF's ROE of -6.63%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to ASSF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs KONEF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, KONEF has a market cap of 44.3M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while KONEF trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas KONEF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to KONEF's ROE of -6.56%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to KONEF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs USNU Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, USNU has a market cap of 23.6M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while USNU trades at $1.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas USNU's P/E ratio is -10.00. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to USNU's ROE of -0.62%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to USNU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs HQDA Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, HQDA has a market cap of 18.6M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while HQDA trades at $0.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HQDA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to HQDA's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to HQDA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs NVLPF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, NVLPF has a market cap of 18.1M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while NVLPF trades at $0.21.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NVLPF's P/E ratio is 20.74. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to NVLPF's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to NVLPF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs FPCG Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, FPCG has a market cap of 10.3M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while FPCG trades at $1,025.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FPCG's P/E ratio is 0.09. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to FPCG's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to FPCG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs XCRT Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, XCRT has a market cap of 8.4M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while XCRT trades at $0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas XCRT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to XCRT's ROE of +2.48%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to XCRT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs NUMIF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, NUMIF has a market cap of 7.3M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while NUMIF trades at $0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NUMIF's P/E ratio is -0.37. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to NUMIF's ROE of -1.95%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to NUMIF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs BICX Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, BICX has a market cap of 5.8M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while BICX trades at $0.34.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BICX's P/E ratio is -0.83. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to BICX's ROE of +0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to BICX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs GBCS Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, GBCS has a market cap of 4.9M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while GBCS trades at $1.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GBCS's P/E ratio is -2.35. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to GBCS's ROE of +0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to GBCS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs VLXC Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, VLXC has a market cap of 4.8M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while VLXC trades at $0.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas VLXC's P/E ratio is -6.75. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to VLXC's ROE of +0.68%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to VLXC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs HLYK Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, HLYK has a market cap of 4.8M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while HLYK trades at $0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HLYK's P/E ratio is -0.85. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to HLYK's ROE of +2.41%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to HLYK. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs RHEP Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, RHEP has a market cap of 4.7M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while RHEP trades at $2.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RHEP's P/E ratio is -1.02. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to RHEP's ROE of +1.29%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to RHEP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs GRST Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, GRST has a market cap of 3.1M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while GRST trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GRST's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to GRST's ROE of +0.30%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to GRST. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs EPWCF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, EPWCF has a market cap of 2.5M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while EPWCF trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas EPWCF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to EPWCF's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS and EPWCF have similar daily volatility (196.04).
SMAS vs JRSS Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, JRSS has a market cap of 1.9M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while JRSS trades at $0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas JRSS's P/E ratio is -0.37. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to JRSS's ROE of +2.63%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to JRSS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs TOKIF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, TOKIF has a market cap of 1.8M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while TOKIF trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TOKIF's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to TOKIF's ROE of -0.83%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS and TOKIF have similar daily volatility (196.04).
SMAS vs MDGP Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, MDGP has a market cap of 1.5M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while MDGP trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MDGP's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to MDGP's ROE of -2.19%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to MDGP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs NOVC Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, NOVC has a market cap of 1.2M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while NOVC trades at $0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NOVC's P/E ratio is -0.20. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to NOVC's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to NOVC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs PHMB Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, PHMB has a market cap of 1.1M. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while PHMB trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PHMB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to PHMB's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS and PHMB have similar daily volatility (196.04).
SMAS vs GNOW Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, GNOW has a market cap of 859.7K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while GNOW trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GNOW's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to GNOW's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to GNOW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs NXGT Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, NXGT has a market cap of 403.1K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while NXGT trades at $0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NXGT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to NXGT's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to NXGT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs JNHMF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, JNHMF has a market cap of 337.5K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while JNHMF trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas JNHMF's P/E ratio is -0.07. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to JNHMF's ROE of +0.81%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to JNHMF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs ARPC Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, ARPC has a market cap of 336.6K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while ARPC trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ARPC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to ARPC's ROE of -0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to ARPC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs SETO Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, SETO has a market cap of 299.4K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while SETO trades at $0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SETO's P/E ratio is -2.40. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to SETO's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to SETO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs FCHS Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, FCHS has a market cap of 296.6K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while FCHS trades at $0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FCHS's P/E ratio is -0.07. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to FCHS's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to FCHS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs KJFI Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, KJFI has a market cap of 278.9K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while KJFI trades at $0.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas KJFI's P/E ratio is -0.06. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to KJFI's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to KJFI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs DPAT Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, DPAT has a market cap of 276.9K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while DPAT trades at $0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DPAT's P/E ratio is -1.15. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to DPAT's ROE of +0.45%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to DPAT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs BNYN Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, BNYN has a market cap of 150.5K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while BNYN trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BNYN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to BNYN's ROE of -14.10%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS and BNYN have similar daily volatility (196.04).
SMAS vs COLRF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, COLRF has a market cap of 138K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while COLRF trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas COLRF's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to COLRF's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to COLRF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs TPIA Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, TPIA has a market cap of 113.8K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while TPIA trades at $0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TPIA's P/E ratio is -0.15. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to TPIA's ROE of +0.61%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to TPIA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs AMBD Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, AMBD has a market cap of 85.6K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while AMBD trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AMBD's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to AMBD's ROE of +1.11%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS and AMBD have similar daily volatility (196.04).
SMAS vs NMHLY Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, NMHLY has a market cap of 41.7K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while NMHLY trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NMHLY's P/E ratio is 0.02. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to NMHLY's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to NMHLY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs GENN Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, GENN has a market cap of 32.7K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while GENN trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas GENN's P/E ratio is -0.02. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to GENN's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to GENN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs DRWN Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, DRWN has a market cap of 24K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while DRWN trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas DRWN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to DRWN's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to DRWN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs HSMD Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, HSMD has a market cap of 19.2K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while HSMD trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas HSMD's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to HSMD's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to HSMD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs SCAL Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, SCAL has a market cap of 17.4K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while SCAL trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SCAL's P/E ratio is 0.04. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to SCAL's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to SCAL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs CHCR Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, CHCR has a market cap of 12K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while CHCR trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CHCR's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to CHCR's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to CHCR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs CLRD Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, CLRD has a market cap of 10.8K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while CLRD trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CLRD's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to CLRD's ROE of +0.38%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to CLRD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs ACGI Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, ACGI has a market cap of 10.5K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while ACGI trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ACGI's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to ACGI's ROE of +1.11%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to ACGI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs CEVE Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, CEVE has a market cap of 7.7K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while CEVE trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CEVE's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to CEVE's ROE of +2.26%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to CEVE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs NAFS Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, NAFS has a market cap of 7K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while NAFS trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NAFS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to NAFS's ROE of +1.02%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to NAFS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs PRMD Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, PRMD has a market cap of 5.6K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while PRMD trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PRMD's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to PRMD's ROE of +0.73%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to PRMD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs MSGP Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, MSGP has a market cap of 5.2K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while MSGP trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MSGP's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to MSGP's ROE of +0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to MSGP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs MSITF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, MSITF has a market cap of 4.8K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while MSITF trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MSITF's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to MSITF's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to MSITF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs ERUC Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, ERUC has a market cap of 3.9K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while ERUC trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ERUC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to ERUC's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to ERUC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs SLHPF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, SLHPF has a market cap of 3.9K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while SLHPF trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SLHPF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to SLHPF's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS and SLHPF have similar daily volatility (196.04).
SMAS vs WEQL Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, WEQL has a market cap of 3.5K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while WEQL trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas WEQL's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to WEQL's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to WEQL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs BBAL Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, BBAL has a market cap of 3.4K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while BBAL trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BBAL's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to BBAL's ROE of +0.45%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to BBAL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs NMMCF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, NMMCF has a market cap of 2.1K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while NMMCF trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NMMCF's P/E ratio is 0.00. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to NMMCF's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to NMMCF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs PPRG Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, PPRG has a market cap of 1.6K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while PPRG trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas PPRG's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to PPRG's ROE of -0.58%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to PPRG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs OHAQ Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, OHAQ has a market cap of 1.4K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while OHAQ trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas OHAQ's P/E ratio is 0.01. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to OHAQ's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to OHAQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs BNKL Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, BNKL has a market cap of 1.2K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while BNKL trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BNKL's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to BNKL's ROE of -7.69%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to BNKL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs MAHN Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, MAHN has a market cap of 1.2K. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while MAHN trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MAHN's P/E ratio is 0.05. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to MAHN's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS and MAHN have similar daily volatility (196.04).
SMAS vs SLHGF Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, SLHGF has a market cap of 398. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while SLHGF trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SLHGF's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to SLHGF's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to SLHGF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs LHRP Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, LHRP has a market cap of 343. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while LHRP trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LHRP's P/E ratio is 0.00. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to LHRP's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to LHRP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs NMSCA Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, NMSCA has a market cap of 275. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while NMSCA trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NMSCA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to NMSCA's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to NMSCA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.
SMAS vs INDR Comparison
SMAS plays a significant role within the Healthcare sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, SMAS stands at 1.5M. In comparison, INDR has a market cap of 132. Regarding current trading prices, SMAS is priced at $0.00, while INDR trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
SMAS currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas INDR's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, SMAS's ROE is N/A, compared to INDR's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, SMAS is more volatile compared to INDR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for SMAS.