1925 vs 5522: DAIWA HOUSE INDUSTRY CO.,LTD. vs Farglory Land Development 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.
1925•Tokyo Stock Exchange
¥4,852.00
-1.36%
NT$69.70
-1.13%
Quick Summary
DAIWA HOUSE INDUSTRY CO.,LTD. is 59.2× the market cap of Farglory Land Development Co Ltd. 5522 pays a dividend; 1925 does not.
Price & Performance
| Metric | 1925 | 5522 |
|---|---|---|
| Current Price | ¥4,852.00 | NT$69.70 |
| Daily Change | -1.36% | -1.13% |
| 1-Year Return | -4.80% | 16.56% |
| 52-Week High | ¥5,710.00 | NT$81.40 |
| 52-Week Low | ¥4,763.31 | NT$53.20 |
| 50-Day MA | — | NT$68.73 |
| 200-Day MA | — | NT$64.71 |
| Beta | — | -0.05 |
Size & Revenue
| Metric | 1925 | 5522 |
|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $3.26T | $55.10B |
| Enterprise Value | — | $77.50B |
| Revenue (TTM) | — | $31.15B |
| Shares Outstanding | — | 781.60M |
| Float | — | 207.80M |
| Employees | — | 0 |
Valuation
| Metric | 1925 | 5522 |
|---|---|---|
| Trailing P/E | — | 9.48 |
| Forward P/E | — | 5.91 |
| PEG Ratio | — | 2.95 |
| Price / Sales | — | 1.77 |
| Price / Book | — | 1.08 |
| EV / EBITDA | — | 9.73 |
Profitability
| Metric | 1925 | 5522 |
|---|---|---|
| Profit Margin | — | 18.70% |
| Operating Margin (TTM) | — | 26.38% |
| Return on Equity | — | 12.03% |
| Return on Assets | — | 4.54% |
| Diluted EPS (TTM) | — | 7.44 |
Growth
| Metric | 1925 | 5522 |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth (YoY) | — | 349.50% |
| Earnings Growth (YoY) | — | 540.10% |
Dividends
| Metric | 1925 | 5522 |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | — | 7.85% |
| Dividend / Share | — | 5.50 |
Risk-Adjusted Returns & Quality
| Metric | 1925 | 5522 |
|---|---|---|
| Sortino (Composite) | -1.59 | 0.92 |
| Sharpe (Composite) | -1.32 | 0.38 |
| Calmar (Composite) | -4.41 | -0.41 |
| Hurst Exponent | 0.5586 | 0.6360 |
| Piotroski F-Score | — | 8/9 |
| Magic Formula Rank | — | #7,865 |
Ownership
| Metric | 1925 | 5522 |
|---|---|---|
| % Insiders | — | 6561.90% |
| % Institutions | — | 2138.20% |
Compare 1925 to peers
Compare 5522 to peers
Green highlighting indicates the more favorable value for each metric. Data is for informational purposes only and may be delayed.