PLAG Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Harte-Hanks has a net margin of -70.61% compared to Planet Green Holdings's net margin of -5.17%. Planet Green Holdings's return on equity of -80.05% beat Harte-Hanks's return on equity of -146.84%.

Planet Green Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Harte-Hanks has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 293.26%. Given that Harte-Hanks has higher upside potential than Planet Green Holdings, analysts believe Harte-Hanks is more attractive than Planet Green Holdings.

Planet Green Holdings has a beta of 0.369, which suggesting that the stock is 63.065% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Harte-Hanks has a beta of 0.098, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 90.167%.

Planet Green Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Harte-Hanks offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Planet Green Holdings pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Harte-Hanks pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Planet Green Holdings quarterly revenues are $1.5M, which are smaller than Harte-Hanks quarterly revenues of $47.1M. Planet Green Holdings's net income of -$1.1M is higher than Harte-Hanks's net income of -$2.4M. Notably, Planet Green Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Harte-Hanks'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 Planet Green Holdings is 5.20x versus 0.18x for Harte-Hanks. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Matthews International has a net margin of -70.61% compared to Planet Green Holdings's net margin of -0.86%. Planet Green Holdings's return on equity of -80.05% beat Matthews International's return on equity of -12.82%.

Planet Green Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Matthews International has an analysts' consensus of $41.00 which suggests that it could grow by 111.56%. Given that Matthews International has higher upside potential than Planet Green Holdings, analysts believe Matthews International is more attractive than Planet Green Holdings.

Planet Green Holdings has a beta of 0.369, which suggesting that the stock is 63.065% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Matthews International has a beta of 1.067, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 6.735%.

Planet Green Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Matthews International offers a yield of 5.06% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.25 per share. Planet Green Holdings pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Matthews International pays out -52.65% of its earnings as a dividend.

Planet Green Holdings quarterly revenues are $1.5M, which are smaller than Matthews International quarterly revenues of $401.8M. Planet Green Holdings's net income of -$1.1M is higher than Matthews International's net income of -$3.5M. Notably, Planet Green Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Matthews International's PE ratio is 30.15x. 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 Planet Green Holdings is 5.20x versus 0.35x for Matthews International. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

NN has a net margin of -70.61% compared to Planet Green Holdings's net margin of -19.69%. Planet Green Holdings's return on equity of -80.05% beat NN's return on equity of -27.13%.

Planet Green Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand NN has an analysts' consensus of $6.67 which suggests that it could grow by 289.86%. Given that NN has higher upside potential than Planet Green Holdings, analysts believe NN is more attractive than Planet Green Holdings.

Planet Green Holdings has a beta of 0.369, which suggesting that the stock is 63.065% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison NN has a beta of 2.727, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 172.703%.

Planet Green Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. NN offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Planet Green Holdings pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. NN pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Planet Green Holdings quarterly revenues are $1.5M, which are smaller than NN quarterly revenues of $106.5M. Planet Green Holdings's net income of -$1.1M is higher than NN's net income of -$21M. Notably, Planet Green Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while NN'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 Planet Green Holdings is 5.20x versus 0.18x for NN. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Seaboard has a net margin of -70.61% compared to Planet Green Holdings's net margin of 6.21%. Planet Green Holdings's return on equity of -80.05% beat Seaboard's return on equity of 1.89%.

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

Planet Green Holdings has a beta of 0.369, which suggesting that the stock is 63.065% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Seaboard has a beta of 0.154, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 84.593%.

Planet Green Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Seaboard offers a yield of 0.35% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $2.25 per share. Planet Green Holdings pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Seaboard pays out 10.23% of its earnings as a dividend. Seaboard's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Planet Green Holdings quarterly revenues are $1.5M, which are smaller than Seaboard quarterly revenues of $2.5B. Planet Green Holdings's net income of -$1.1M is lower than Seaboard's net income of $154M. Notably, Planet Green Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Seaboard's PE ratio is 28.19x. 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 Planet Green Holdings is 5.20x versus 0.27x for Seaboard. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.