1109 vs 1925: China Resources Land Ltd vs DAIWA HOUSE INDUSTRY CO.,LTD.
Side-by-side comparison of key financial metrics, valuation ratios, profitability, growth, and risk-adjusted returns. Both companies are in the Real Estate sector.
1109•Hong Kong Stock Exchange
HK$31.34
+0.32%
1925•Tokyo Stock Exchange
¥4,852.00
-1.36%
Quick Summary
DAIWA HOUSE INDUSTRY CO.,LTD. is 14.8× the market cap of China Resources Land Ltd. 1109 pays a dividend; 1925 does not.
Price & Performance
| Metric | 1109 | 1925 |
|---|---|---|
| Current Price | HK$31.34 | ¥4,852.00 |
| Daily Change | 0.32% | -1.36% |
| 1-Year Return | 14.59% | -4.80% |
| 52-Week High | HK$33.10 | ¥5,710.00 |
| 52-Week Low | HK$24.95 | ¥4,763.31 |
| 50-Day MA | HK$30.36 | — |
| 200-Day MA | HK$29.81 | — |
| Beta | 0.63 | — |
Size & Revenue
| Metric | 1109 | 1925 |
|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $220.35B | $3.26T |
| Enterprise Value | $411.79B | — |
| Revenue (TTM) | $281.44B | — |
| Shares Outstanding | 7.13B | — |
| Float | 2.88B | — |
| Employees | 59,077 | — |
Valuation
| Metric | 1109 | 1925 |
|---|---|---|
| Trailing P/E | 7.57 | — |
| Forward P/E | 6.07 | — |
| PEG Ratio | 0.66 | — |
| Price / Sales | 0.78 | — |
| Price / Book | 0.66 | — |
| EV / EBITDA | 6.38 | — |
Profitability
| Metric | 1109 | 1925 |
|---|---|---|
| Profit Margin | 9.03% | — |
| Operating Margin (TTM) | 14.59% | — |
| Return on Equity | 8.04% | — |
| Return on Assets | 2.56% | — |
| Diluted EPS (TTM) | 3.82 | — |
Growth
| Metric | 1109 | 1925 |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth (YoY) | -6.60% | — |
| Earnings Growth (YoY) | -11.70% | — |
Dividends
| Metric | 1109 | 1925 |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | 3.77% | — |
| Dividend / Share | 1.17 | — |
Risk-Adjusted Returns & Quality
| Metric | 1109 | 1925 |
|---|---|---|
| Sortino (Composite) | 2.14 | -1.59 |
| Sharpe (Composite) | 4.96 | -1.32 |
| Calmar (Composite) | 4.71 | -4.41 |
| Hurst Exponent | 0.5430 | 0.5586 |
| Piotroski F-Score | 8/9 | — |
| Magic Formula Rank | #13,989 | — |
Ownership
| Metric | 1109 | 1925 |
|---|---|---|
| % Insiders | 5955.30% | — |
| % Institutions | 1745.90% | — |
Compare 1109 to peers
Compare 1925 to peers
Green highlighting indicates the more favorable value for each metric. Data is for informational purposes only and may be delayed.