1800 vs 1802: China Communications Const-H vs OBAYASHI CORPORATION
Side-by-side comparison of key financial metrics, valuation ratios, profitability, growth, and risk-adjusted returns. Both companies are in the Industrials sector.
18
1800•Hong Kong Stock Exchange
HK$4.60
-0.22%
1802•Tokyo Stock Exchange
¥3,685.00
-2.15%
Quick Summary
OBAYASHI CORPORATION is 20.5× the market cap of China Communications Const-H. 1800 pays a dividend; 1802 does not.
Price & Performance
| Metric | 1800 | 1802 |
|---|---|---|
| Current Price | HK$4.60 | ¥3,685.00 |
| Daily Change | -0.22% | -2.15% |
| 1-Year Return | -5.54% | 76.54% |
| 52-Week High | HK$5.97 | ¥4,416.00 |
| 52-Week Low | HK$4.49 | ¥2,071.64 |
| 50-Day MA | HK$4.92 | — |
| 200-Day MA | HK$5.17 | — |
| Beta | 0.52 | — |
Size & Revenue
| Metric | 1800 | 1802 |
|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $119.77B | $2.46T |
| Enterprise Value | $788.28B | — |
| Revenue (TTM) | $731.11B | — |
| Shares Outstanding | 11.83B | — |
| Float | 7.09B | — |
| Employees | 137,471 | — |
Valuation
| Metric | 1800 | 1802 |
|---|---|---|
| Trailing P/E | 3.07 | — |
| Forward P/E | 3.33 | — |
| PEG Ratio | 1.05 | — |
| Price / Sales | 0.16 | — |
| Price / Book | 0.20 | — |
| EV / EBITDA | 8.02 | — |
Profitability
| Metric | 1800 | 1802 |
|---|---|---|
| Profit Margin | 2.02% | — |
| Operating Margin (TTM) | 5.88% | — |
| Return on Equity | 4.45% | — |
| Return on Assets | 1.19% | — |
| Diluted EPS (TTM) | 0.81 | — |
Growth
| Metric | 1800 | 1802 |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth (YoY) | -7.70% | — |
| Earnings Growth (YoY) | -85.60% | — |
Dividends
| Metric | 1800 | 1802 |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | 4.30% | — |
| Dividend / Share | 0.20 | — |
Risk-Adjusted Returns & Quality
| Metric | 1800 | 1802 |
|---|---|---|
| Sortino (Composite) | 0.02 | 2.75 |
| Sharpe (Composite) | -0.52 | 1.61 |
| Calmar (Composite) | -1.55 | 1.72 |
| Hurst Exponent | 0.5037 | 0.5744 |
| Piotroski F-Score | 1/9 | — |
| Magic Formula Rank | #22,966 | — |
Ownership
| Metric | 1800 | 1802 |
|---|---|---|
| % Insiders | 712.40% | — |
| % Institutions | 376.10% | — |
Compare 1800 to peers
Compare 1802 to peers
Green highlighting indicates the more favorable value for each metric. Data is for informational purposes only and may be delayed.