EIDP, Inc. (CTA-PA) Stock Competitors & Peer Comparison
See (CTA-PA) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Agricultural Inputs Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTA-PA | $53.10 | -1.02% | 35.9B | N/A | N/A | +0.97% |
| CTA-PB | $67.30 | +0.15% | 58.6B | N/A | N/A | +0.97% |
| CTVA | $75.31 | -0.73% | 50.2B | 40.55 | $1.85 | +0.97% |
| NTR | $64.94 | -3.49% | 31.9B | 13.51 | $4.91 | +3.30% |
| CF | $108.57 | -0.80% | 16.7B | 9.78 | $11.10 | +1.86% |
| ICL | $5.53 | -1.16% | 7.2B | 26.62 | $0.21 | +3.43% |
| MOS | $20.22 | -5.43% | 6.8B | 152.00 | $0.14 | +4.13% |
| SMG | $59.74 | +3.83% | 3.5B | 17.13 | $3.48 | +4.43% |
| FMC | $11.23 | +1.13% | 1.4B | -0.59 | -$19.62 | +11.39% |
| UAN | $118.00 | +1.54% | 1.2B | 10.18 | $11.49 | +10.51% |
Stock Comparison
CTA-PA vs CTA-PB Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, CTA-PB has a market cap of 58.6B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while CTA-PB trades at $67.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CTA-PB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to CTA-PB's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to CTA-PB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check CTA-PB's competition here
CTA-PA vs CTVA Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, CTVA has a market cap of 50.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while CTVA trades at $75.31.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CTVA's P/E ratio is 40.55. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to CTVA's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to CTVA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check CTVA's competition here
CTA-PA vs NTR Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, NTR has a market cap of 31.9B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while NTR trades at $64.94.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas NTR's P/E ratio is 13.51. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to NTR's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to NTR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check NTR's competition here
CTA-PA vs CF Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, CF has a market cap of 16.7B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while CF trades at $108.57.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CF's P/E ratio is 9.78. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to CF's ROE of +0.35%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to CF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check CF's competition here
CTA-PA vs ICL Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, ICL has a market cap of 7.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while ICL trades at $5.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas ICL's P/E ratio is 26.62. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to ICL's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to ICL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check ICL's competition here
CTA-PA vs MOS Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, MOS has a market cap of 6.8B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while MOS trades at $20.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MOS's P/E ratio is 152.00. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to MOS's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to MOS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check MOS's competition here
CTA-PA vs SMG Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, SMG has a market cap of 3.5B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while SMG trades at $59.74.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SMG's P/E ratio is 17.13. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to SMG's ROE of -0.34%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to SMG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check SMG's competition here
CTA-PA vs FMC Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, FMC has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while FMC trades at $11.23.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FMC's P/E ratio is -0.59. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to FMC's ROE of -0.83%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to FMC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check FMC's competition here
CTA-PA vs UAN Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, UAN has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while UAN trades at $118.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas UAN's P/E ratio is 10.18. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to UAN's ROE of +0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to UAN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check UAN's competition here
CTA-PA vs IPI Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, IPI has a market cap of 464.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while IPI trades at $34.37.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas IPI's P/E ratio is 31.15. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to IPI's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to IPI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check IPI's competition here
CTA-PA vs AVD Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, AVD has a market cap of 85.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while AVD trades at $3.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AVD's P/E ratio is -1.87. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to AVD's ROE of -0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to AVD. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check AVD's competition here
CTA-PA vs BHST Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, BHST has a market cap of 52.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while BHST trades at $3.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BHST's P/E ratio is -5.21. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to BHST's ROE of -0.88%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to BHST. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check BHST's competition here
CTA-PA vs MULG Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, MULG has a market cap of 49.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while MULG trades at $2.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MULG's P/E ratio is 18.21. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to MULG's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA and MULG have similar daily volatility (0.00).Check MULG's competition here
CTA-PA vs BHIL-WT Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, BHIL-WT has a market cap of 49M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while BHIL-WT trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BHIL-WT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to BHIL-WT's ROE of -0.82%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to BHIL-WT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check BHIL-WT's competition here
CTA-PA vs CGA Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, CGA has a market cap of 29.3M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while CGA trades at $1.98.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas CGA's P/E ratio is -0.98. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to CGA's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA and CGA have similar daily volatility (0.00).Check CGA's competition here
CTA-PA vs BIOX Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, BIOX has a market cap of 27.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while BIOX trades at $0.44.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BIOX's P/E ratio is -0.41. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to BIOX's ROE of -1.49%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to BIOX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check BIOX's competition here
CTA-PA vs LVRO Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, LVRO has a market cap of 15.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while LVRO trades at $0.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas LVRO's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to LVRO's ROE of +11.90%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA and LVRO have similar daily volatility (0.00).Check LVRO's competition here
CTA-PA vs SEED Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, SEED has a market cap of 7.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while SEED trades at $0.96.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SEED's P/E ratio is -1.35. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to SEED's ROE of +1.02%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to SEED. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check SEED's competition here
CTA-PA vs AGRZ Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, AGRZ has a market cap of 6.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while AGRZ trades at $0.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas AGRZ's P/E ratio is 3.20. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to AGRZ's ROE of +0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to AGRZ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check AGRZ's competition here
CTA-PA vs SVFD Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, SVFD has a market cap of 4.2M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while SVFD trades at $1.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas SVFD's P/E ratio is 0.07. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to SVFD's ROE of -367.30%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to SVFD. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check SVFD's competition here
CTA-PA vs FMTO Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, FMTO has a market cap of 3.1M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while FMTO trades at $3.61.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas FMTO's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to FMTO's ROE of +75.78%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to FMTO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check FMTO's competition here
CTA-PA vs BHIL Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, BHIL has a market cap of 1.5M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while BHIL trades at $0.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas BHIL's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to BHIL's ROE of -0.82%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA and BHIL have similar daily volatility (0.00).Check BHIL's competition here
CTA-PA vs RKDA Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, RKDA has a market cap of 1.4M. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while RKDA trades at $0.89.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas RKDA's P/E ratio is -0.15. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to RKDA's ROE of -2.19%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to RKDA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check RKDA's competition here
CTA-PA vs YTEN Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, YTEN has a market cap of 345.5K. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while YTEN trades at $0.34.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas YTEN's P/E ratio is -0.02. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to YTEN's ROE of -15.08%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to YTEN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check YTEN's competition here
CTA-PA vs TNH Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, TNH has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while TNH trades at $83.96.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas TNH's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to TNH's ROE of +0.43%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to TNH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check TNH's competition here
CTA-PA vs MBII Comparison June 2026
CTA-PA plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, CTA-PA stands at 35.9B. In comparison, MBII has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, CTA-PA is priced at $53.10, while MBII trades at $0.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
CTA-PA currently has a P/E ratio of N/A, whereas MBII's P/E ratio is -6.82. In terms of profitability, CTA-PA's ROE is +0.05%, compared to MBII's ROE of -0.54%. Regarding short-term risk, CTA-PA is less volatile compared to MBII. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for CTA-PA.Check MBII's competition here