CLDHF vs RGN: CapitaLand China Trust vs Region Group
Side-by-side comparison of key financial metrics, valuation ratios, profitability, growth, and risk-adjusted returns. Both companies are in the Real Estate sector.
CL
CLDHF•United States
$0.60
+0.00%
RG
RGN•Australian Securities Exchange
A$2.28
-0.44%
Quick Summary
Region Group is 2.5× the market cap of CapitaLand China Trust. CLDHF trades at a lower P/E than RGN. CLDHF offers the higher dividend yield.
Price & Performance
| Metric | CLDHF | RGN |
|---|---|---|
| Current Price | $0.60 | A$2.28 |
| Daily Change | 0.00% | -0.44% |
| 1-Year Return | 4.80% | 2.70% |
| 52-Week High | $0.63 | A$2.49 |
| 52-Week Low | $0.50 | A$2.11 |
| 50-Day MA | $0.60 | A$2.24 |
| 200-Day MA | $0.59 | A$2.35 |
| Beta | 0.72 | 0.63 |
Size & Revenue
| Metric | CLDHF | RGN |
|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $1.07B | $2.63B |
| Enterprise Value | $2.03B | $4.22B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $303.72M | $386.70M |
| Shares Outstanding | 1.74B | 1.15B |
| Float | 1.30B | 1.12B |
| Employees | 0 | 0 |
Valuation
| Metric | CLDHF | RGN |
|---|---|---|
| Trailing P/E | 0.00 | 8.48 |
| Forward P/E | 4.31 | 13.91 |
| Price / Sales | 3.52 | 6.81 |
| Price / Book | 0.69 | 156.90 |
| EV / EBITDA | 21.76 | 11.12 |
Profitability
| Metric | CLDHF | RGN |
|---|---|---|
| Profit Margin | -1.81% | 80.35% |
| Operating Margin (TTM) | 58.96% | 57.95% |
| Return on Equity | 0.25% | 10.77% |
| Return on Assets | 2.46% | 2.98% |
| Diluted EPS (TTM) | 0.00 | 0.27 |
Growth
| Metric | CLDHF | RGN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth (YoY) | -14.30% | 1.00% |
| Earnings Growth (YoY) | 159.70% | 120.00% |
Dividends
| Metric | CLDHF | RGN |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | 7.97% | 6.10% |
| Dividend / Share | 0.05 | 0.14 |
Risk-Adjusted Returns & Quality
| Metric | CLDHF | RGN |
|---|---|---|
| Sortino (Composite) | 0.37 | 1.10 |
| Sharpe (Composite) | 0.27 | 0.36 |
| Calmar (Composite) | 0.47 | 5.62 |
| Hurst Exponent | 0.4540 | 0.5585 |
| Piotroski F-Score | 6/9 | 6/9 |
| Magic Formula Rank | #16,785 | #18,520 |
Ownership
| Metric | CLDHF | RGN |
|---|---|---|
| % Insiders | 98.50% | 110.20% |
| % Institutions | 4242.30% | 4791.50% |
Compare CLDHF to peers
Compare RGN to peers
Green highlighting indicates the more favorable value for each metric. Data is for informational purposes only and may be delayed.