CCEC Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Euroseas has a net margin of 21.97% compared to Capital Clean Energy Carriers's net margin of 51.03%. Capital Clean Energy Carriers's return on equity of 9.43% beat Euroseas's return on equity of 38.8%.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers has a consensus price target of $22.00, signalling upside risk potential of 20.61%. On the other hand Euroseas has an analysts' consensus of $59.67 which suggests that it could grow by 68.41%. Given that Euroseas has higher upside potential than Capital Clean Energy Carriers, analysts believe Euroseas is more attractive than Capital Clean Energy Carriers.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers has a beta of 0.829, which suggesting that the stock is 17.111% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Euroseas has a beta of 0.899, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 10.112%.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers has a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.29%. Euroseas offers a yield of 6.77% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.60 per share. Capital Clean Energy Carriers pays 25.93% of its earnings as a dividend. Euroseas pays out 12.21% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers quarterly revenues are $106M, which are larger than Euroseas quarterly revenues of $54.1M. Capital Clean Energy Carriers's net income of $23.3M is lower than Euroseas's net income of $27.6M. Notably, Capital Clean Energy Carriers's price-to-earnings ratio is 14.03x while Euroseas's PE ratio is 2.18x. 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 Capital Clean Energy Carriers is 1.78x versus 1.18x for Euroseas. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Star Bulk Carriers has a net margin of 21.97% compared to Capital Clean Energy Carriers's net margin of 23.61%. Capital Clean Energy Carriers's return on equity of 9.43% beat Star Bulk Carriers's return on equity of 14.89%.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers has a consensus price target of $22.00, signalling upside risk potential of 20.61%. On the other hand Star Bulk Carriers has an analysts' consensus of $26.44 which suggests that it could grow by 77.93%. Given that Star Bulk Carriers has higher upside potential than Capital Clean Energy Carriers, analysts believe Star Bulk Carriers is more attractive than Capital Clean Energy Carriers.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers has a beta of 0.829, which suggesting that the stock is 17.111% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Star Bulk Carriers has a beta of 0.988, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 1.188%.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers has a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.29%. Star Bulk Carriers offers a yield of 16.82% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.60 per share. Capital Clean Energy Carriers pays 25.93% of its earnings as a dividend. Star Bulk Carriers pays out 91.07% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers quarterly revenues are $106M, which are smaller than Star Bulk Carriers quarterly revenues of $344.3M. Capital Clean Energy Carriers's net income of $23.3M is lower than Star Bulk Carriers's net income of $81.3M. Notably, Capital Clean Energy Carriers's price-to-earnings ratio is 14.03x while Star Bulk Carriers's PE ratio is 5.02x. 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 Capital Clean Energy Carriers is 1.78x versus 1.23x for Star Bulk Carriers. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Seanergy Maritime Holdings has a net margin of 21.97% compared to Capital Clean Energy Carriers's net margin of 28.29%. Capital Clean Energy Carriers's return on equity of 9.43% beat Seanergy Maritime Holdings's return on equity of 19.6%.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers has a consensus price target of $22.00, signalling upside risk potential of 20.61%. On the other hand Seanergy Maritime Holdings has an analysts' consensus of $14.50 which suggests that it could grow by 110.76%. Given that Seanergy Maritime Holdings has higher upside potential than Capital Clean Energy Carriers, analysts believe Seanergy Maritime Holdings is more attractive than Capital Clean Energy Carriers.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers has a beta of 0.829, which suggesting that the stock is 17.111% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Seanergy Maritime Holdings has a beta of 0.659, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 34.095%.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers has a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.29%. Seanergy Maritime Holdings offers a yield of 8.14% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.26 per share. Capital Clean Energy Carriers pays 25.93% of its earnings as a dividend. Seanergy Maritime Holdings pays out 264.29% of its earnings as a dividend. Capital Clean Energy Carriers's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but Seanergy Maritime Holdings's is not.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers quarterly revenues are $106M, which are larger than Seanergy Maritime Holdings quarterly revenues of $44.4M. Capital Clean Energy Carriers's net income of $23.3M is higher than Seanergy Maritime Holdings's net income of $12.5M. Notably, Capital Clean Energy Carriers's price-to-earnings ratio is 14.03x while Seanergy Maritime Holdings's PE ratio is 2.94x. 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 Capital Clean Energy Carriers is 1.78x versus 0.82x for Seanergy Maritime Holdings. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

United Maritime has a net margin of 21.97% compared to Capital Clean Energy Carriers's net margin of -7.73%. Capital Clean Energy Carriers's return on equity of 9.43% beat United Maritime's return on equity of -3.53%.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers has a consensus price target of $22.00, signalling upside risk potential of 20.61%. On the other hand United Maritime has an analysts' consensus of $5.50 which suggests that it could grow by 229.34%. Given that United Maritime has higher upside potential than Capital Clean Energy Carriers, analysts believe United Maritime is more attractive than Capital Clean Energy Carriers.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers has a beta of 0.829, which suggesting that the stock is 17.111% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison United Maritime has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers has a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.29%. United Maritime offers a yield of 17.96% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.08 per share. Capital Clean Energy Carriers pays 25.93% of its earnings as a dividend. United Maritime pays out 4237.1% of its earnings as a dividend. Capital Clean Energy Carriers's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but United Maritime's is not.

Capital Clean Energy Carriers quarterly revenues are $106M, which are larger than United Maritime quarterly revenues of $11.6M. Capital Clean Energy Carriers's net income of $23.3M is higher than United Maritime's net income of -$894K. Notably, Capital Clean Energy Carriers's price-to-earnings ratio is 14.03x while United Maritime's PE ratio is 3.37x. 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 Capital Clean Energy Carriers is 1.78x versus 0.32x for United Maritime. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.