ACGBY Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Metalpha Technology Holding has a net margin of 45.27% compared to Agricultural Bank of China's net margin of --. Agricultural Bank of China's return on equity of 9.32% beat Metalpha Technology Holding's return on equity of -30.78%.

Agricultural Bank of China has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Metalpha Technology Holding has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Agricultural Bank of China has higher upside potential than Metalpha Technology Holding, analysts believe Agricultural Bank of China is more attractive than Metalpha Technology Holding.

Agricultural Bank of China has a beta of 0.107, which suggesting that the stock is 89.253% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Metalpha Technology Holding has a beta of -0.825, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 182.528%.

Agricultural Bank of China has a quarterly dividend of $0.81 per share corresponding to a yield of 11.12%. Metalpha Technology Holding offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Agricultural Bank of China pays 68.92% of its earnings as a dividend. Metalpha Technology Holding pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Agricultural Bank of China's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Agricultural Bank of China quarterly revenues are $24.2B, which are larger than Metalpha Technology Holding quarterly revenues of --. Agricultural Bank of China's net income of $11B is higher than Metalpha Technology Holding's net income of --. Notably, Agricultural Bank of China's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.58x while Metalpha Technology 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 Agricultural Bank of China is 2.20x versus 2.06x for Metalpha Technology Holding. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Magic Empire Global has a net margin of 45.27% compared to Agricultural Bank of China's net margin of --. Agricultural Bank of China's return on equity of 9.32% beat Magic Empire Global's return on equity of -0.43%.

Agricultural Bank of China has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Magic Empire Global has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Agricultural Bank of China has higher upside potential than Magic Empire Global, analysts believe Agricultural Bank of China is more attractive than Magic Empire Global.

Agricultural Bank of China has a beta of 0.107, which suggesting that the stock is 89.253% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Magic Empire Global has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Agricultural Bank of China has a quarterly dividend of $0.81 per share corresponding to a yield of 11.12%. Magic Empire Global offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.01 per share. Agricultural Bank of China pays 68.92% of its earnings as a dividend. Magic Empire Global pays out -326.97% of its earnings as a dividend. Agricultural Bank of China's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Agricultural Bank of China quarterly revenues are $24.2B, which are larger than Magic Empire Global quarterly revenues of --. Agricultural Bank of China's net income of $11B is higher than Magic Empire Global's net income of --. Notably, Agricultural Bank of China's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.58x while Magic Empire Global'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 Agricultural Bank of China is 2.20x versus 5.18x for Magic Empire Global. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Prestige Wealth has a net margin of 45.27% compared to Agricultural Bank of China's net margin of --. Agricultural Bank of China's return on equity of 9.32% beat Prestige Wealth's return on equity of --.

Agricultural Bank of China has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Prestige Wealth has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Agricultural Bank of China has higher upside potential than Prestige Wealth, analysts believe Agricultural Bank of China is more attractive than Prestige Wealth.

Agricultural Bank of China has a beta of 0.107, which suggesting that the stock is 89.253% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Prestige Wealth has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Agricultural Bank of China has a quarterly dividend of $0.81 per share corresponding to a yield of 11.12%. Prestige Wealth offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Agricultural Bank of China pays 68.92% of its earnings as a dividend. Prestige Wealth pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Agricultural Bank of China's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Agricultural Bank of China quarterly revenues are $24.2B, which are larger than Prestige Wealth quarterly revenues of --. Agricultural Bank of China's net income of $11B is higher than Prestige Wealth's net income of --. Notably, Agricultural Bank of China's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.58x while Prestige Wealth'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 Agricultural Bank of China is 2.20x versus -- for Prestige Wealth. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

TOP Financial Group has a net margin of 45.27% compared to Agricultural Bank of China's net margin of --. Agricultural Bank of China's return on equity of 9.32% beat TOP Financial Group's return on equity of 2.73%.

Agricultural Bank of China has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand TOP Financial Group has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Agricultural Bank of China has higher upside potential than TOP Financial Group, analysts believe Agricultural Bank of China is more attractive than TOP Financial Group.

Agricultural Bank of China has a beta of 0.107, which suggesting that the stock is 89.253% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison TOP Financial Group has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Agricultural Bank of China has a quarterly dividend of $0.81 per share corresponding to a yield of 11.12%. TOP Financial Group offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Agricultural Bank of China pays 68.92% of its earnings as a dividend. TOP Financial Group pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Agricultural Bank of China's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Agricultural Bank of China quarterly revenues are $24.2B, which are larger than TOP Financial Group quarterly revenues of --. Agricultural Bank of China's net income of $11B is higher than TOP Financial Group's net income of --. Notably, Agricultural Bank of China's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.58x while TOP Financial Group's PE ratio is 61.61x. 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 Agricultural Bank of China is 2.20x versus 5.83x for TOP Financial Group. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.