CLPHY Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

China Resources Power Holdings has a net margin of -- compared to CLP Holdings's net margin of --. CLP Holdings's return on equity of 6.75% beat China Resources Power Holdings's return on equity of 13.24%.

CLP 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 CLP Holdings has higher upside potential than China Resources Power Holdings, analysts believe CLP Holdings is more attractive than China Resources Power Holdings.

CLP Holdings has a beta of 0.530, which suggesting that the stock is 46.991% 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%.

CLP Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.08 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.78%. China Resources Power Holdings offers a yield of 5.46% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.88 per share. CLP Holdings pays 115.28% of its earnings as a dividend. China Resources Power Holdings pays out 29.88% of its earnings as a dividend. China Resources Power Holdings's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but CLP Holdings's is not.

CLP Holdings quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than China Resources Power Holdings quarterly revenues of --. CLP Holdings's net income of -- is lower than China Resources Power Holdings's net income of --. Notably, CLP Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 21.72x 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 CLP Holdings is 1.87x 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 CLP Holdings's net margin of --. CLP Holdings's return on equity of 6.75% beat Concord New Energy Group's return on equity of 11.41%.

CLP 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 CLP Holdings has higher upside potential than Concord New Energy Group, analysts believe CLP Holdings is more attractive than Concord New Energy Group.

CLP Holdings has a beta of 0.530, which suggesting that the stock is 46.991% 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%.

CLP Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.08 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.78%. Concord New Energy Group offers a yield of 8.96% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. CLP Holdings pays 115.28% of its earnings as a dividend. Concord New Energy Group pays out 28.9% of its earnings as a dividend. Concord New Energy Group's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but CLP Holdings's is not.

CLP Holdings quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Concord New Energy Group quarterly revenues of --. CLP Holdings's net income of -- is lower than Concord New Energy Group's net income of --. Notably, CLP Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 21.72x 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 CLP Holdings is 1.87x 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 CLP Holdings's net margin of --. CLP Holdings's return on equity of 6.75% beat Power Assets Holdings's return on equity of 6.89%.

CLP 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 CLP Holdings has higher upside potential than Power Assets Holdings, analysts believe CLP Holdings is more attractive than Power Assets Holdings.

CLP Holdings has a beta of 0.530, which suggesting that the stock is 46.991% 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%.

CLP Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.08 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.78%. Power Assets Holdings offers a yield of 5.22% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.10 per share. CLP Holdings pays 115.28% of its earnings as a dividend. Power Assets Holdings pays out 100.1% of its earnings as a dividend. Neither of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

CLP Holdings quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Power Assets Holdings quarterly revenues of --. CLP Holdings's net income of -- is lower than Power Assets Holdings's net income of --. Notably, CLP Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 21.72x while Power Assets Holdings's PE ratio is 19.04x. 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 CLP Holdings is 1.87x versus 106.33x for Power Assets Holdings. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Beijing Energy International Holding has a net margin of -- compared to CLP Holdings's net margin of --. CLP Holdings's return on equity of 6.75% beat Beijing Energy International Holding's return on equity of --.

CLP 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 CLP Holdings has higher upside potential than Beijing Energy International Holding, analysts believe CLP Holdings is more attractive than Beijing Energy International Holding.

CLP Holdings has a beta of 0.530, which suggesting that the stock is 46.991% 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%.

CLP Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.08 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.78%. Beijing Energy International Holding offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. CLP Holdings pays 115.28% of its earnings as a dividend. Beijing Energy International Holding pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

CLP Holdings quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Beijing Energy International Holding quarterly revenues of --. CLP Holdings's net income of -- is lower than Beijing Energy International Holding's net income of --. Notably, CLP Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 21.72x 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 CLP Holdings is 1.87x versus -- for Beijing Energy International Holding. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.