ACMTA vs LCSHF
To compare these two companies we present long-term analysis, their fundamental ratings and make comparative short-term technical analysis which are presented below. The conclusion is ACMTA is a Hold and LCSHF is a Hold.
Long-Term Analysis
It is best to consider a long-term outlook for a ticker by using Fundamental Analysis (FA) ratings. The rating of 1 to 100, where 1 is best and 100 is worst, is divided into thirds. The first third (a green rating of 1-33) indicates that the ticker is undervalued; the second third (a grey number between 34 and 66) means that the ticker is valued fairly; and the last third (red number of 67 to 100) reflects that the ticker is undervalued. We use an FA Score to show how many ratings show the ticker to be undervalued (green) or overvalued (red).
ACMTA’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileLCSHF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- ACMTA’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- LCSHF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
ACMTA (@Specialty Insurance) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while LCSHF (@Specialty Insurance) price change was +2.57% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Specialty Insurance industry was +1.51%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -1.71%, and the average quarterly price growth was +0.78%.
Reported Earning Dates
ACMTA is expected to report earnings on Mar 16, 2025.
LCSHF is expected to report earnings on Aug 06, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Specialty Insurance (+1.51% weekly)Specialty insurance typically caters to niche-markets, and covers items that are special or unique and/or items that are not typically covered under other insurance policies. Restoration or purchase of a one-of-a-kind collector’s item, high-value home, recreational vehicles, sailboat or even jet skis, horses and farms, all-terrain vehicle, funerals, museums and fine art collections are some examples– one or more of which are covered by a specialty insurance provider. In some cases, a specialty insurance could also complement someone’s existing auto, home and umbrella policies. Markel Corp, for Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Assurant, Inc. and Athene Holding Ltd. are examples of specialty insurance providers.
| ACMTA | LCSHF | ACMTA / LCSHF | |
| Capitalization | 25M | 1.87B | 1% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 18.210 | -8.664 | -210% |
| P/E Ratio | 66.67 | 21.83 | 305% |
| Revenue | 3.36M | 1.01B | 0% |
| Total Cash | 6.14M | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 8.57M | 469M | 2% |
ACMTA | LCSHF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 89 Overvalued | 39 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 81 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 9 | 91 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 40 | 54 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 99 | 35 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 65 | 32 |
Tickeron ratings are formulated such that a rating of 1 designates the most successful stocks in a given industry, while a rating of 100 points to the least successful stocks for that industry.
LCSHF's Valuation (39) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for ACMTA (89). This means that LCSHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than ACMTA’s over the last 12 months.
ACMTA's Profit vs Risk Rating (81) in the null industry is in the same range as LCSHF (100). This means that ACMTA’s stock grew similarly to LCSHF’s over the last 12 months.
ACMTA's SMR Rating (9) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for LCSHF (91). This means that ACMTA’s stock grew significantly faster than LCSHF’s over the last 12 months.
ACMTA's Price Growth Rating (40) in the null industry is in the same range as LCSHF (54). This means that ACMTA’s stock grew similarly to LCSHF’s over the last 12 months.
LCSHF's P/E Growth Rating (35) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for ACMTA (99). This means that LCSHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than ACMTA’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| CONL | 19.21 | 1.00 | +5.49% |
| GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF | |||
| SPMB | 21.92 | 0.08 | +0.37% |
| SPDR® Portfolio Mortgage Backed Bond ETF | |||
| RAYD | 32.45 | 0.10 | +0.30% |
| Rayliant Quantitative Dev Mkt Eq ETF | |||
| NFLT | 22.37 | N/A | N/A |
| Virtus Newfleet Multi-Sect Bd ETF | |||
| ECLN | 30.48 | -0.10 | -0.32% |
| First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF | |||
ACMTA and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that ACMTA and BZLYF have been poorly correlated (+17% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that ACMTA and BZLYF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To ACMTA | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACMTA | 100% | N/A | ||
| BZLYF - ACMTA | 17% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HIPO - ACMTA | 5% Poorly correlated | -1.38% | ||
| JTGPF - ACMTA | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LCSHF - ACMTA | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ACMT - ACMTA | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
LCSHF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that LCSHF and RYAN have been poorly correlated (+15% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LCSHF and RYAN's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LCSHF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCSHF | 100% | N/A | ||
| RYAN - LCSHF | 15% Poorly correlated | -6.80% | ||
| FACO - LCSHF | 7% Poorly correlated | +2.19% | ||
| TRRSF - LCSHF | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BZLYF - LCSHF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ACMTA - LCSHF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||