நிஃப்டி 50, நிஃப்டி வங்கி மற்றும் சென்செக்ஸ் ஏற்றப்படுகின்றன…
Completed-session research

Statistical Peers

Listings whose daily returns actually moved with this one, ranked by measured co-movement rather than by sector label.

Research Intelligence
Sessions of history correlated.
How many rows to rank.
What this page is for
Why co-movement instead of the sector label

A sector is a filing category somebody assigned to a company. Correlation is what the two prices actually did, session after session. Listings in different sectors routinely share one driver — the same currency, input cost, large customer, regulator or funding cycle — and move as one anyway, while two names filed under the same sector can have almost nothing in common.

What people use it for
  • Overlap you cannot see. Holdings that look spread across sectors but repeatedly move together are closer to one position than several.
  • Honest comparables. Before reading one company's result, margin or guidance across to another, check the two actually trade together.
  • What to watch. The names whose sessions have historically accompanied this one — useful context when only one of them has news.
  • Label checks. A "sector peer" that never co-moved is a classification, not a peer.
What it cannot tell you

Co-movement is not cause, not comparability and not permanent. Two listings can correlate simply because both follow the index rather than each other, so a high number is a question to investigate, not an answer. A different window can reorder this list completely — which is exactly why the window is a control on the page and not a fixed setting.

What each column means
Return correlation — measured on daily percentage returns, not prices, and reported from −1 to +1. +1.00 means the two moved the same direction in proportion on nearly every shared session; 0 means no relationship; a negative value means they tended to move opposite. Above roughly 0.70 the pair behaves like one exposure.
Shared sessions — days on which both listings traded. Everything is computed on that overlap alone, so a peer ranked on a fraction of the window is a much weaker claim than one ranked on all of it.
Candidates compared — the bounded pool this listing was ranked against — printed in full above the results table. Peers are the best of that pool, not of the entire exchange.
Outside the stored sector — how many ranked peers carry a different sector label. These are usually the rows worth reading, because the tape and the classification disagree.
Window — how far back the correlation is measured. Short windows react to the current regime; long windows describe a structural relationship and hide recent change. Neither is the right one — comparing them is the point.
Enter an exact exchange listing to rank its peers by measured return co-movement.

Co-movement describes shared history. It does not make two companies comparable, and it is not a recommendation.