1925 vs 600064: DAIWA HOUSE INDUSTRY CO.,LTD. vs Nanjing Gaoke 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%
60
600064•SHG
CN¥8.58
+1.18%
Quick Summary
DAIWA HOUSE INDUSTRY CO.,LTD. is 219.9× the market cap of Nanjing Gaoke Co Ltd. 600064 pays a dividend; 1925 does not.
Price & Performance
| Metric | 1925 | 600064 |
|---|---|---|
| Current Price | ¥4,852.00 | CN¥8.58 |
| Daily Change | -1.36% | 1.18% |
| 1-Year Return | -4.80% | 21.70% |
| 52-Week High | ¥5,710.00 | CN¥9.22 |
| 52-Week Low | ¥4,763.31 | CN¥7.16 |
| 50-Day MA | — | CN¥8.62 |
| 200-Day MA | — | CN¥8.39 |
| Beta | — | 0.58 |
Size & Revenue
| Metric | 1925 | 600064 |
|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $3.26T | $14.85B |
| Enterprise Value | — | $22.76B |
| Revenue (TTM) | — | $2.86B |
| Shares Outstanding | — | 1.73B |
| Float | — | 1.06B |
| Employees | — | 648 |
Valuation
| Metric | 1925 | 600064 |
|---|---|---|
| Trailing P/E | — | 6.40 |
| Forward P/E | — | 10.99 |
| Price / Sales | — | 5.19 |
| Price / Book | — | 0.75 |
| EV / EBITDA | — | 9.79 |
Profitability
| Metric | 1925 | 600064 |
|---|---|---|
| Profit Margin | — | 81.24% |
| Operating Margin (TTM) | — | 8.67% |
| Return on Equity | — | 10.91% |
| Return on Assets | — | -0.85% |
| Diluted EPS (TTM) | — | 1.34 |
Growth
| Metric | 1925 | 600064 |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth (YoY) | — | -6.80% |
| Earnings Growth (YoY) | — | 29.80% |
Dividends
| Metric | 1925 | 600064 |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | — | 3.54% |
| Dividend / Share | — | 0.30 |
Risk-Adjusted Returns & Quality
| Metric | 1925 | 600064 |
|---|---|---|
| Sortino (Composite) | -1.59 | 1.95 |
| Sharpe (Composite) | -1.32 | 3.67 |
| Calmar (Composite) | -4.41 | 5.89 |
| Hurst Exponent | 0.5586 | 0.5847 |
| Piotroski F-Score | — | 4/9 |
| Magic Formula Rank | — | #15,443 |
Ownership
| Metric | 1925 | 600064 |
|---|---|---|
| % Insiders | — | 4466.50% |
| % Institutions | — | 651.80% |
Compare 1925 to peers
Compare 600064 to peers
Green highlighting indicates the more favorable value for each metric. Data is for informational purposes only and may be delayed.