CGEGF Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

China Resources Power Holdings has a net margin of -- compared to CGN New Energy Holdings's net margin of --. CGN New Energy Holdings's return on equity of 14.93% beat China Resources Power Holdings's return on equity of 13.24%.

CGN New Energy Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand China Resources Power Holdings has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that CGN New Energy Holdings has higher upside potential than China Resources Power Holdings, analysts believe CGN New Energy Holdings is more attractive than China Resources Power Holdings.

CGN New Energy Holdings has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison China Resources Power Holdings has a beta of 0.502, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 49.812%.

CGN New Energy Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.02 per share corresponding to a yield of 6.39%. China Resources Power Holdings offers a yield of 5.46% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.88 per share. CGN New Energy Holdings pays 14.58% of its earnings as a dividend. China Resources Power Holdings pays out 29.88% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

CGN New Energy Holdings quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than China Resources Power Holdings quarterly revenues of --. CGN New Energy Holdings's net income of -- is lower than China Resources Power Holdings's net income of --. Notably, CGN New Energy Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 4.12x while China Resources Power Holdings's PE ratio is 6.75x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for CGN New Energy Holdings is 0.54x versus 0.89x for China Resources Power Holdings. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Concord New Energy Group has a net margin of -- compared to CGN New Energy Holdings's net margin of --. CGN New Energy Holdings's return on equity of 14.93% beat Concord New Energy Group's return on equity of 11.41%.

CGN New Energy Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Concord New Energy Group has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that CGN New Energy Holdings has higher upside potential than Concord New Energy Group, analysts believe CGN New Energy Holdings is more attractive than Concord New Energy Group.

CGN New Energy Holdings has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Concord New Energy Group has a beta of 0.345, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 65.496%.

CGN New Energy Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.02 per share corresponding to a yield of 6.39%. Concord New Energy Group offers a yield of 8.96% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. CGN New Energy Holdings pays 14.58% of its earnings as a dividend. Concord New Energy Group pays out 28.9% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

CGN New Energy Holdings quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Concord New Energy Group quarterly revenues of --. CGN New Energy Holdings's net income of -- is lower than Concord New Energy Group's net income of --. Notably, CGN New Energy Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 4.12x while Concord New Energy Group's PE ratio is 3.05x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for CGN New Energy Holdings is 0.54x versus 1.11x for Concord New Energy Group. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Power Assets Holdings has a net margin of -- compared to CGN New Energy Holdings's net margin of --. CGN New Energy Holdings's return on equity of 14.93% beat Power Assets Holdings's return on equity of 6.89%.

CGN New Energy Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Power Assets Holdings has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that CGN New Energy Holdings has higher upside potential than Power Assets Holdings, analysts believe CGN New Energy Holdings is more attractive than Power Assets Holdings.

CGN New Energy Holdings has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Power Assets Holdings has a beta of 0.506, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 49.363%.

CGN New Energy Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.02 per share corresponding to a yield of 6.39%. Power Assets Holdings offers a yield of 5.25% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.10 per share. CGN New Energy Holdings pays 14.58% of its earnings as a dividend. Power Assets Holdings pays out 100.1% of its earnings as a dividend. CGN New Energy Holdings's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but Power Assets Holdings's is not.

CGN New Energy Holdings quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Power Assets Holdings quarterly revenues of --. CGN New Energy Holdings's net income of -- is lower than Power Assets Holdings's net income of --. Notably, CGN New Energy Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 4.12x while Power Assets Holdings's PE ratio is 18.91x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for CGN New Energy Holdings is 0.54x versus 105.56x for Power Assets Holdings. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Beijing Energy International Holding has a net margin of -- compared to CGN New Energy Holdings's net margin of --. CGN New Energy Holdings's return on equity of 14.93% beat Beijing Energy International Holding's return on equity of --.

CGN New Energy Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Beijing Energy International Holding has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that CGN New Energy Holdings has higher upside potential than Beijing Energy International Holding, analysts believe CGN New Energy Holdings is more attractive than Beijing Energy International Holding.

CGN New Energy Holdings has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Beijing Energy International Holding has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

CGN New Energy Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.02 per share corresponding to a yield of 6.39%. Beijing Energy International Holding offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. CGN New Energy Holdings pays 14.58% of its earnings as a dividend. Beijing Energy International Holding pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. CGN New Energy Holdings's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

CGN New Energy Holdings quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Beijing Energy International Holding quarterly revenues of --. CGN New Energy Holdings's net income of -- is lower than Beijing Energy International Holding's net income of --. Notably, CGN New Energy Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 4.12x while Beijing Energy International Holding's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for CGN New Energy Holdings is 0.54x versus -- for Beijing Energy International Holding. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.