Advertisement
ALBHF vs CLCGY
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 ALBHF is a Hold and CLCGY 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).
ALBHF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileCLCGY’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- ALBHF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- CLCGY’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Short-Term Analysis
It is best to consider a short-term outlook for a ticker by using Technical Analysis (TA) indicators. We use Odds of Success as the percentage of outcomes which confirm successful trade signals in the past.
If the Odds of Success (the likelihood of the continuation of a trend) for each indicator are greater than 50%, then the generated signal is confirmed. A green percentage from 90% to 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bullish trend. A red percentage from 90% - 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bearish trend. All grey percentages are below 50% and are considered not to confirm the trend signal.
ALBHF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CLCGY’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- ALBHF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 4 bearish.
- CLCGY’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 6 bearish.
Price Growth
ALBHF (@Drugstore Chains) experienced а -7.71% price change this week, while CLCGY (@Drugstore Chains) price change was -2.18% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Drugstore Chains industry was -2.66%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -2.69%, and the average quarterly price growth was +8.02%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Drugstore Chains (-2.66% weekly)The drugstore chains industry includes stores that sell medicines (both prescription and non-prescription), health, beauty and personal care products. Over time, many pharmacy retail chains have launched their own pharmacy benefits management services. Since demand for medical products is typically less sensitive to economic cycles, drugstore retail chains industry could be largely considered as non-cyclical. CVS Health Corporation, Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. and Rite Aid Corporation are some of the biggest operators in this industry.
| ALBHF | CLCGY | ALBHF / CLCGY | |
| Capitalization | 13.5B | 4.88B | 276% |
| EBITDA | 1.34B | 6.31B | 21% |
| Gain YTD | 108.223 | 5.014 | 2,158% |
| P/E Ratio | 66.53 | 27.79 | 239% |
| Revenue | 28.3B | 46.8B | 60% |
| Total Cash | 7.73B | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 68M | N/A | - |
ALBHF | CLCGY | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 29 | 10 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 82 Overvalued | 97 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 50 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 17 | 43 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 37 | 60 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 22 | 78 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | n/a |
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.
ALBHF's Valuation (82) in the null industry is in the same range as CLCGY (97). This means that ALBHF’s stock grew similarly to CLCGY’s over the last 12 months.
CLCGY's Profit vs Risk Rating (50) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for ALBHF (100). This means that CLCGY’s stock grew somewhat faster than ALBHF’s over the last 12 months.
ALBHF's SMR Rating (17) in the null industry is in the same range as CLCGY (43). This means that ALBHF’s stock grew similarly to CLCGY’s over the last 12 months.
ALBHF's Price Growth Rating (37) in the null industry is in the same range as CLCGY (60). This means that ALBHF’s stock grew similarly to CLCGY’s over the last 12 months.
ALBHF's P/E Growth Rating (22) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CLCGY (78). This means that ALBHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CLCGY’s over the last 12 months.
| ALBHF | CLCGY | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 83% | 2 days ago 60% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 88% | 2 days ago 71% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 53% | 2 days ago 61% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 85% | 2 days ago 54% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 81% | 2 days ago 52% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 55% | 2 days ago 50% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 60% | 18 days ago 51% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 51% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 71% | 2 days ago 74% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 64% | 2 days ago 52% |
Advertisement
ALBHF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that ALBHF and ALBBY have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that ALBHF and ALBBY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To ALBHF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALBHF | 100% | -5.61% | ||
| ALBBY - ALBHF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| RDGT - ALBHF | 19% Poorly correlated | -6.57% | ||
| CLCGY - ALBHF | 4% Poorly correlated | -1.25% | ||
| HEWA - ALBHF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PETS - ALBHF | 2% Poorly correlated | +0.38% | ||
More | ||||