1925 vs 600773: DAIWA HOUSE INDUSTRY CO.,LTD. vs Tibet Urban Development and Investment 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
CN¥22.47
+6.39%
Quick Summary
DAIWA HOUSE INDUSTRY CO.,LTD. is 152.7× the market cap of Tibet Urban Development and Investment Co Ltd.
Price & Performance
| Metric | 1925 | 600773 |
|---|---|---|
| Current Price | ¥4,852.00 | CN¥22.47 |
| Daily Change | -1.36% | 6.39% |
| 1-Year Return | -4.80% | 148.01% |
| 52-Week High | ¥5,710.00 | CN¥22.47 |
| 52-Week Low | ¥4,763.31 | CN¥8.76 |
| 50-Day MA | — | CN¥16.20 |
| 200-Day MA | — | CN¥12.99 |
| Beta | — | 0.36 |
Size & Revenue
| Metric | 1925 | 600773 |
|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $3.26T | $21.38B |
| Enterprise Value | — | $22.76B |
| Revenue (TTM) | — | $918.68M |
| Shares Outstanding | — | 951.59M |
| Float | — | 555.34M |
| Employees | — | 385 |
Valuation
| Metric | 1925 | 600773 |
|---|---|---|
| Trailing P/E | — | 0.00 |
| Forward P/E | — | 66.23 |
| Price / Sales | — | 23.27 |
| Price / Book | — | 4.68 |
| EV / EBITDA | — | 100.69 |
Profitability
| Metric | 1925 | 600773 |
|---|---|---|
| Profit Margin | — | -60.16% |
| Operating Margin (TTM) | — | -68.96% |
| Return on Equity | — | -16.39% |
| Return on Assets | — | -0.76% |
| Diluted EPS (TTM) | — | -0.58 |
Growth
| Metric | 1925 | 600773 |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth (YoY) | — | -91.50% |
| Earnings Growth (YoY) | — | -27.80% |
Dividends
| Metric | 1925 | 600773 |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | — | 0.00% |
| Dividend / Share | — | 0.00 |
Risk-Adjusted Returns & Quality
| Metric | 1925 | 600773 |
|---|---|---|
| Sortino (Composite) | -1.59 | 9.07 |
| Sharpe (Composite) | -1.32 | 14.05 |
| Calmar (Composite) | -4.41 | 17.99 |
| Hurst Exponent | 0.5586 | 0.6248 |
| Piotroski F-Score | — | 4/9 |
| Magic Formula Rank | — | #28,509 |
Ownership
| Metric | 1925 | 600773 |
|---|---|---|
| % Insiders | — | 4984.50% |
| % Institutions | — | 231.40% |
Compare 1925 to peers
Compare 600773 to peers
Green highlighting indicates the more favorable value for each metric. Data is for informational purposes only and may be delayed.