How High Will Airbnb Stock Go?
Airbnb, Inc. (NASDAQ:ABNB) share price has seen substantial turbulence over…
Buy
54
EWH Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings
Last price:
$16.97
Seasonality move
:
-0.07%
Day range:
$16.80 - $17.05
52-week range:
$14.64 - $20.37
Dividend yield:
4.11%
P/E ratio:
--
P/S ratio:
--
P/B ratio:
--
Volume:
880.8K
Avg. volume:
2.3M
1-year change:
-0.12%
Market cap:
--
Revenue:
--
EPS (TTM):
--
Price Performance History
Performance vs. Valuation Benchmarks
SEE THE 1% OF STOCKS YOU NEED TO OWN FOR MASSIVE RETURNS
GET BETTER TRADE IDEAS
Competitors
| Company | Revenue Forecast | Earnings Forecast | Revenue Growth Forecast | Earnings Growth Forecast | Analyst Price Target Median |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
EWH
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
FCA
First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
FLHK
Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
FXI
iShares China Large-Cap ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
GXC
SPDR S&P China ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
KALL
KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Company | Price | Analyst Target | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | Dividend per Share | Dividend Yield | Price / LTM Sales |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
EWH
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF
|
$16.92 | -- | -- | -- | $0.34 | 4.11% | -- |
|
FCA
First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund
|
$19.96 | -- | -- | -- | $0.02 | 5.2% | -- |
|
FLHK
Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF
|
$17.51 | -- | -- | -- | $0.43 | 4.42% | -- |
|
FXI
iShares China Large-Cap ETF
|
$31.09 | -- | -- | -- | $0.45 | 1.72% | -- |
|
GXC
SPDR S&P China ETF
|
$77.20 | -- | -- | -- | $1.50 | 2.76% | -- |
|
KALL
KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF
|
$20.93 | -- | -- | -- | $0.48 | 2.28% | -- |
| Company | Total Debt / Total Capital | Beta | Debt to Equity | Quick Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
EWH
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF
|
-- | 1.298 | -- | -- |
|
FCA
First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund
|
-- | 0.857 | -- | -- |
|
FLHK
Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF
|
-- | 1.336 | -- | -- |
|
FXI
iShares China Large-Cap ETF
|
-- | 0.824 | -- | -- |
|
GXC
SPDR S&P China ETF
|
-- | 1.002 | -- | -- |
|
KALL
KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF
|
-- | 0.988 | -- | -- |
| Company | Gross Profit | Operating Income | Return on Invested Capital | Return on Common Equity | EBIT Margin | Free Cash Flow |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
EWH
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
FCA
First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
FLHK
Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
FXI
iShares China Large-Cap ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
GXC
SPDR S&P China ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
KALL
KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF vs. Competitors
-
Which has Higher Returns EWH or FCA?
First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund has a net margin of -- compared to iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's net margin of --. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's return on equity of -- beat First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund's return on equity of --.
Company Gross Margin Earnings Per Share Invested Capital EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF-- -- -- FCAFirst Trust China AlphaDEX Fund-- -- -- -
What do Analysts Say About EWH or FCA?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has higher upside potential than First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund, analysts believe iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF is more attractive than First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund.
Company Buy Ratings Hold Ratings Sell Ratings EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF0 0 0 FCAFirst Trust China AlphaDEX Fund0 0 0 -
Is EWH or FCA More Risky?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a beta of 0.873, which suggesting that the stock is 12.742% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund has a beta of 0.838, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 16.162%.
-
Which is a Better Dividend Stock EWH or FCA?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a quarterly dividend of $0.34 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.11%. First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund offers a yield of 5.2% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.02 per share. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.
-
Which has Better Financial Ratios EWH or FCA?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund quarterly revenues of --. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's net income of -- is lower than First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund's net income of --. Notably, iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund'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 iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF is -- versus -- for First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.
Company Price/Sales Ratio Price/Earnings Ratio Quarterly Revenue Quarterly Net Income EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF-- -- -- -- FCAFirst Trust China AlphaDEX Fund-- -- -- --
-
Which has Higher Returns EWH or FLHK?
Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF has a net margin of -- compared to iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's net margin of --. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's return on equity of -- beat Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF's return on equity of --.
Company Gross Margin Earnings Per Share Invested Capital EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF-- -- -- FLHKFranklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF-- -- -- -
What do Analysts Say About EWH or FLHK?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has higher upside potential than Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF, analysts believe iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF is more attractive than Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF.
Company Buy Ratings Hold Ratings Sell Ratings EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF0 0 0 FLHKFranklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF0 0 0 -
Is EWH or FLHK More Risky?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a beta of 0.873, which suggesting that the stock is 12.742% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF has a beta of 0.879, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 12.068%.
-
Which is a Better Dividend Stock EWH or FLHK?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a quarterly dividend of $0.34 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.11%. Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF offers a yield of 4.42% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.43 per share. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.
-
Which has Better Financial Ratios EWH or FLHK?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF quarterly revenues of --. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's net income of -- is lower than Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF's net income of --. Notably, iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF'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 iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF is -- versus -- for Franklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.
Company Price/Sales Ratio Price/Earnings Ratio Quarterly Revenue Quarterly Net Income EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF-- -- -- -- FLHKFranklin FTSE Hong Kong ETF-- -- -- --
-
Which has Higher Returns EWH or FXI?
iShares China Large-Cap ETF has a net margin of -- compared to iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's net margin of --. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's return on equity of -- beat iShares China Large-Cap ETF's return on equity of --.
Company Gross Margin Earnings Per Share Invested Capital EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF-- -- -- FXIiShares China Large-Cap ETF-- -- -- -
What do Analysts Say About EWH or FXI?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand iShares China Large-Cap ETF has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has higher upside potential than iShares China Large-Cap ETF, analysts believe iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF is more attractive than iShares China Large-Cap ETF.
Company Buy Ratings Hold Ratings Sell Ratings EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF0 0 0 FXIiShares China Large-Cap ETF0 0 0 -
Is EWH or FXI More Risky?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a beta of 0.873, which suggesting that the stock is 12.742% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison iShares China Large-Cap ETF has a beta of 0.813, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 18.674%.
-
Which is a Better Dividend Stock EWH or FXI?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a quarterly dividend of $0.34 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.11%. iShares China Large-Cap ETF offers a yield of 1.72% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.45 per share. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. iShares China Large-Cap ETF pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.
-
Which has Better Financial Ratios EWH or FXI?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than iShares China Large-Cap ETF quarterly revenues of --. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's net income of -- is lower than iShares China Large-Cap ETF's net income of --. Notably, iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while iShares China Large-Cap ETF'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 iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF is -- versus -- for iShares China Large-Cap ETF. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.
Company Price/Sales Ratio Price/Earnings Ratio Quarterly Revenue Quarterly Net Income EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF-- -- -- -- FXIiShares China Large-Cap ETF-- -- -- --
-
Which has Higher Returns EWH or GXC?
SPDR S&P China ETF has a net margin of -- compared to iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's net margin of --. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's return on equity of -- beat SPDR S&P China ETF's return on equity of --.
Company Gross Margin Earnings Per Share Invested Capital EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF-- -- -- GXCSPDR S&P China ETF-- -- -- -
What do Analysts Say About EWH or GXC?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand SPDR S&P China ETF has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has higher upside potential than SPDR S&P China ETF, analysts believe iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF is more attractive than SPDR S&P China ETF.
Company Buy Ratings Hold Ratings Sell Ratings EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF0 0 0 GXCSPDR S&P China ETF0 0 0 -
Is EWH or GXC More Risky?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a beta of 0.873, which suggesting that the stock is 12.742% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison SPDR S&P China ETF has a beta of 0.802, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 19.751%.
-
Which is a Better Dividend Stock EWH or GXC?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a quarterly dividend of $0.34 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.11%. SPDR S&P China ETF offers a yield of 2.76% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $1.50 per share. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. SPDR S&P China ETF pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.
-
Which has Better Financial Ratios EWH or GXC?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than SPDR S&P China ETF quarterly revenues of --. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's net income of -- is lower than SPDR S&P China ETF's net income of --. Notably, iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while SPDR S&P China ETF'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 iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF is -- versus -- for SPDR S&P China ETF. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.
Company Price/Sales Ratio Price/Earnings Ratio Quarterly Revenue Quarterly Net Income EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF-- -- -- -- GXCSPDR S&P China ETF-- -- -- --
-
Which has Higher Returns EWH or KALL?
KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF has a net margin of -- compared to iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's net margin of --. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's return on equity of -- beat KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF's return on equity of --.
Company Gross Margin Earnings Per Share Invested Capital EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF-- -- -- KALLKraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF-- -- -- -
What do Analysts Say About EWH or KALL?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has higher upside potential than KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF, analysts believe iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF is more attractive than KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF.
Company Buy Ratings Hold Ratings Sell Ratings EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF0 0 0 KALLKraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF0 0 0 -
Is EWH or KALL More Risky?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a beta of 0.873, which suggesting that the stock is 12.742% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF has a beta of 0.781, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 21.853%.
-
Which is a Better Dividend Stock EWH or KALL?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF has a quarterly dividend of $0.34 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.11%. KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF offers a yield of 2.28% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.48 per share. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.
-
Which has Better Financial Ratios EWH or KALL?
iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF quarterly revenues of --. iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's net income of -- is lower than KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF's net income of --. Notably, iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF'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 iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF is -- versus -- for KraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.
Company Price/Sales Ratio Price/Earnings Ratio Quarterly Revenue Quarterly Net Income EWHiShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF-- -- -- -- KALLKraneShares MSCI All China Index ETF-- -- -- --
SEE THE 1% OF STOCKS YOU NEED TO OWN FOR MASSIVE RETURNS
GET BETTER TRADE IDEAS
Popular
Why Is SoundHound AI Stock Up So Much?
Like many companies improving AI technologies and exploring ways to…
Is The Santa Claus Rally The Gift That Keeps Giving?
Remember the horror of 2008 when the Great Recession hit…
Stock Ideas
Buy
65
Is AAPL Stock a Buy?
Market Cap: $3.9T
P/E Ratio: 43x
Buy
56
Is NVDA Stock a Buy?
Market Cap: $3.4T
P/E Ratio: 118x
Buy
57
Is MSFT Stock a Buy?
Market Cap: $3.3T
P/E Ratio: 37x
Alerts
Buy
64
ARQQ alert for Dec 27
Arqit Quantum [ARQQ] is up 49.85% over the past day.
Buy
60
QMCO alert for Dec 27
Quantum [QMCO] is up 49.62% over the past day.
Buy
65
ALGS alert for Dec 27
Aligos Therapeutics [ALGS] is up 10.88% over the past day.
