Is DocuSign Stock Undervalued?
Digital signature software business DocuSign (NASDAQ:DOCU) has been struggling over…
Sell
32
MFT.TO Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings
Last price:
$15.91
Seasonality move
:
-1.9%
Day range:
$15.88 - $15.97
52-week range:
$15.88 - $17.20
Dividend yield:
8.69%
P/E ratio:
--
P/S ratio:
--
P/B ratio:
--
Volume:
7.8K
Avg. volume:
26.7K
1-year change:
-7.1%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MFT.TO
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
CFRT.TO
CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
FSL.TO
First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged)
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
ICGB.TO
Invesco Global Bond ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
IFRF.TO
IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
ZFH.TO
BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Company | Price | Analyst Target | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | Dividend per Share | Dividend Yield | Price / LTM Sales |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MFT.TO
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF
|
$15.97 | -- | -- | -- | $0.15 | 8.69% | -- |
|
CFRT.TO
CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD
|
$20.67 | -- | -- | -- | $0.09 | 5.26% | -- |
|
FSL.TO
First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged)
|
$16.55 | -- | -- | -- | $0.09 | 6.8% | -- |
|
ICGB.TO
Invesco Global Bond ETF
|
$19.54 | -- | -- | -- | $0.06 | 3.85% | -- |
|
IFRF.TO
IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr
|
$7.79 | -- | -- | -- | $0.04 | 6.89% | -- |
|
ZFH.TO
BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF
|
$15.21 | -- | -- | -- | $0.07 | 5.59% | -- |
| Company | Total Debt / Total Capital | Beta | Debt to Equity | Quick Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MFT.TO
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF
|
-- | -0.418 | -- | -- |
|
CFRT.TO
CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD
|
-- | -0.346 | -- | -- |
|
FSL.TO
First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged)
|
-- | -0.017 | -- | -- |
|
ICGB.TO
Invesco Global Bond ETF
|
-- | 0.970 | -- | -- |
|
IFRF.TO
IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr
|
-- | -0.198 | -- | -- |
|
ZFH.TO
BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF
|
-- | 0.144 | -- | -- |
| Company | Gross Profit | Operating Income | Return on Invested Capital | Return on Common Equity | EBIT Margin | Free Cash Flow |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MFT.TO
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
CFRT.TO
CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
FSL.TO
First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged)
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
ICGB.TO
Invesco Global Bond ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
IFRF.TO
IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
ZFH.TO
BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF
|
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF vs. Competitors
-
Which has Higher Returns MFT.TO or CFRT.TO?
CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD has a net margin of -- compared to Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's net margin of --. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's return on equity of -- beat CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD's return on equity of --.
Company Gross Margin Earnings Per Share Invested Capital MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF-- -- -- CFRT.TOCI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD-- -- -- -
What do Analysts Say About MFT.TO or CFRT.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has higher upside potential than CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD, analysts believe Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF is more attractive than CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD.
Company Buy Ratings Hold Ratings Sell Ratings MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF0 0 0 CFRT.TOCI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD0 0 0 -
Is MFT.TO or CFRT.TO More Risky?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a beta of 0.239, which suggesting that the stock is 76.106% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.
-
Which is a Better Dividend Stock MFT.TO or CFRT.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share corresponding to a yield of 8.69%. CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD offers a yield of 5.26% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.09 per share. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.
-
Which has Better Financial Ratios MFT.TO or CFRT.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD quarterly revenues of --. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's net income of -- is lower than CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD's net income of --. Notably, Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD'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 Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF is -- versus -- for CI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.
Company Price/Sales Ratio Price/Earnings Ratio Quarterly Revenue Quarterly Net Income MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF-- -- -- -- CFRT.TOCI Floating Rate Income Fund ETF CAD-- -- -- --
-
Which has Higher Returns MFT.TO or FSL.TO?
First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged) has a net margin of -- compared to Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's net margin of --. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's return on equity of -- beat First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged)'s return on equity of --.
Company Gross Margin Earnings Per Share Invested Capital MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF-- -- -- FSL.TOFirst Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged)-- -- -- -
What do Analysts Say About MFT.TO or FSL.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged) has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has higher upside potential than First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged), analysts believe Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF is more attractive than First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged).
Company Buy Ratings Hold Ratings Sell Ratings MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF0 0 0 FSL.TOFirst Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged)0 0 0 -
Is MFT.TO or FSL.TO More Risky?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a beta of 0.239, which suggesting that the stock is 76.106% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged) has a beta of 0.344, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 65.587%.
-
Which is a Better Dividend Stock MFT.TO or FSL.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share corresponding to a yield of 8.69%. First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged) offers a yield of 6.8% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.09 per share. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged) pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.
-
Which has Better Financial Ratios MFT.TO or FSL.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged) quarterly revenues of --. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's net income of -- is lower than First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged)'s net income of --. Notably, Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged)'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 Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF is -- versus -- for First Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged). Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.
Company Price/Sales Ratio Price/Earnings Ratio Quarterly Revenue Quarterly Net Income MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF-- -- -- -- FSL.TOFirst Trust Senior Loan ETF (CAD-Hedged)-- -- -- --
-
Which has Higher Returns MFT.TO or ICGB.TO?
Invesco Global Bond ETF has a net margin of -- compared to Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's net margin of --. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's return on equity of -- beat Invesco Global Bond ETF's return on equity of --.
Company Gross Margin Earnings Per Share Invested Capital MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF-- -- -- ICGB.TOInvesco Global Bond ETF-- -- -- -
What do Analysts Say About MFT.TO or ICGB.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Invesco Global Bond ETF has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has higher upside potential than Invesco Global Bond ETF, analysts believe Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF is more attractive than Invesco Global Bond ETF.
Company Buy Ratings Hold Ratings Sell Ratings MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF0 0 0 ICGB.TOInvesco Global Bond ETF0 0 0 -
Is MFT.TO or ICGB.TO More Risky?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a beta of 0.239, which suggesting that the stock is 76.106% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Invesco Global Bond ETF has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.
-
Which is a Better Dividend Stock MFT.TO or ICGB.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share corresponding to a yield of 8.69%. Invesco Global Bond ETF offers a yield of 3.85% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.06 per share. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Invesco Global Bond ETF pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.
-
Which has Better Financial Ratios MFT.TO or ICGB.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Invesco Global Bond ETF quarterly revenues of --. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's net income of -- is lower than Invesco Global Bond ETF's net income of --. Notably, Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Invesco Global Bond 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 Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF is -- versus -- for Invesco Global Bond ETF. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.
Company Price/Sales Ratio Price/Earnings Ratio Quarterly Revenue Quarterly Net Income MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF-- -- -- -- ICGB.TOInvesco Global Bond ETF-- -- -- --
-
Which has Higher Returns MFT.TO or IFRF.TO?
IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr has a net margin of -- compared to Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's net margin of --. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's return on equity of -- beat IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr's return on equity of --.
Company Gross Margin Earnings Per Share Invested Capital MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF-- -- -- IFRF.TOIA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr-- -- -- -
What do Analysts Say About MFT.TO or IFRF.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has higher upside potential than IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr, analysts believe Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF is more attractive than IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr.
Company Buy Ratings Hold Ratings Sell Ratings MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF0 0 0 IFRF.TOIA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr0 0 0 -
Is MFT.TO or IFRF.TO More Risky?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a beta of 0.239, which suggesting that the stock is 76.106% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr has a beta of 0.217, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 78.29%.
-
Which is a Better Dividend Stock MFT.TO or IFRF.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share corresponding to a yield of 8.69%. IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr offers a yield of 6.89% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.04 per share. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.
-
Which has Better Financial Ratios MFT.TO or IFRF.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr quarterly revenues of --. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's net income of -- is lower than IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr's net income of --. Notably, Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr'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 Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF is -- versus -- for IA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.
Company Price/Sales Ratio Price/Earnings Ratio Quarterly Revenue Quarterly Net Income MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF-- -- -- -- IFRF.TOIA Clarington Loomis Floating RateFd ETF Sr-- -- -- --
-
Which has Higher Returns MFT.TO or ZFH.TO?
BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF has a net margin of -- compared to Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's net margin of --. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's return on equity of -- beat BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF's return on equity of --.
Company Gross Margin Earnings Per Share Invested Capital MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF-- -- -- ZFH.TOBMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF-- -- -- -
What do Analysts Say About MFT.TO or ZFH.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has higher upside potential than BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF, analysts believe Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF is more attractive than BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF.
Company Buy Ratings Hold Ratings Sell Ratings MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF0 0 0 ZFH.TOBMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF0 0 0 -
Is MFT.TO or ZFH.TO More Risky?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a beta of 0.239, which suggesting that the stock is 76.106% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF has a beta of 0.621, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 37.944%.
-
Which is a Better Dividend Stock MFT.TO or ZFH.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF has a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share corresponding to a yield of 8.69%. BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF offers a yield of 5.59% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.07 per share. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.
-
Which has Better Financial Ratios MFT.TO or ZFH.TO?
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF quarterly revenues of --. Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's net income of -- is lower than BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF's net income of --. Notably, Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while BMO Floating Rate High Yield 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 Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF is -- versus -- for BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.
Company Price/Sales Ratio Price/Earnings Ratio Quarterly Revenue Quarterly Net Income MFT.TOMackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF-- -- -- -- ZFH.TOBMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF-- -- -- --
SEE THE 1% OF STOCKS YOU NEED TO OWN FOR MASSIVE RETURNS
GET BETTER TRADE IDEAS
Popular
Is SentinelOne Stock Undervalued?
Cybersecurity major SentinelOne (NYSE:S) has struggled over several years, delivering…
Is Broadcom Stock on Sale?
Chip and software maker Broadcom (NASDAQ:AVGO) has been among the…
Stock Ideas
Buy
57
Is NVDA Stock a Buy?
Market Cap: $4.6T
P/E Ratio: 64x
Buy
55
Is AAPL Stock a Buy?
Market Cap: $4T
P/E Ratio: 37x
Buy
61
Is GOOG Stock a Buy?
Market Cap: $3.8T
P/E Ratio: 39x
Alerts
Buy
80
TVTX alert for Dec 25
Travere Therapeutics, Inc. [TVTX] is up 14.03% over the past day.
Buy
68
KOD alert for Dec 25
Kodiak Sciences, Inc. [KOD] is up 13.41% over the past day.
Buy
64
ZCSH alert for Dec 25
Grayscale Zcash Trust (ZEC) [ZCSH] is up 5.33% over the past day.
