2168 vs 600861: Pasona Group Inc. vs Beijing Urban Rural Commercial Group Co Ltd
Side-by-side comparison of key financial metrics, valuation ratios, profitability, growth, and risk-adjusted returns. Both companies are in the Industrials sector.
21
2168•Tokyo Stock Exchange
¥1,790.00
+1.30%
60
CN¥16.32
-0.18%
Quick Summary
Pasona Group Inc. is 8.3× the market cap of Beijing Urban Rural Commercial Group Co Ltd. 600861 pays a dividend; 2168 does not.
Price & Performance
| Metric | 2168 | 600861 |
|---|---|---|
| Current Price | ¥1,790.00 | CN¥16.32 |
| Daily Change | 1.30% | -0.18% |
| 1-Year Return | -15.09% | -24.20% |
| 52-Week High | ¥2,492.00 | CN¥22.42 |
| 52-Week Low | ¥1,767.00 | CN¥15.82 |
| 50-Day MA | — | CN¥17.09 |
| 200-Day MA | — | CN¥18.71 |
| Beta | — | 0.48 |
Size & Revenue
| Metric | 2168 | 600861 |
|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $76.91B | $9.24B |
| Enterprise Value | — | $1.27B |
| Revenue (TTM) | — | $43.66B |
| Shares Outstanding | — | 566.11M |
| Float | — | 254.63M |
| Employees | — | 3,721 |
Valuation
| Metric | 2168 | 600861 |
|---|---|---|
| Trailing P/E | — | 8.00 |
| Forward P/E | — | 19.12 |
| Price / Sales | — | 0.21 |
| Price / Book | — | 1.30 |
| EV / EBITDA | — | 0.67 |
Profitability
| Metric | 2168 | 600861 |
|---|---|---|
| Profit Margin | — | 2.65% |
| Operating Margin (TTM) | — | 7.51% |
| Return on Equity | — | 18.91% |
| Return on Assets | — | 3.65% |
| Diluted EPS (TTM) | — | 2.04 |
Growth
| Metric | 2168 | 600861 |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth (YoY) | — | -1.70% |
| Earnings Growth (YoY) | — | -6.60% |
Dividends
| Metric | 2168 | 600861 |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | — | 4.28% |
| Dividend / Share | — | 0.70 |
Risk-Adjusted Returns & Quality
| Metric | 2168 | 600861 |
|---|---|---|
| Sortino (Composite) | -1.20 | -1.69 |
| Sharpe (Composite) | -0.96 | -0.39 |
| Calmar (Composite) | -2.37 | -1.33 |
| Hurst Exponent | 0.5402 | 0.5704 |
| Piotroski F-Score | — | 6/9 |
| Magic Formula Rank | — | #2,994 |
Ownership
| Metric | 2168 | 600861 |
|---|---|---|
| % Insiders | — | 5323.50% |
| % Institutions | — | 1653.80% |
Compare 2168 to peers
Compare 600861 to peers
Green highlighting indicates the more favorable value for each metric. Data is for informational purposes only and may be delayed.