AOCIF vs CDNAF
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 AOCIF is a Hold and CDNAF 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).
AOCIF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileCDNAF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- AOCIF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- CDNAF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
AOCIF (@Specialty Stores) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while CDNAF (@Specialty Stores) price change was -0.09% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Specialty Stores industry was -0.37%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +9.63%, and the average quarterly price growth was +6.89%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Specialty Stores (-0.37% weekly)The specialty stores sector includes companies dedicated to the sale of retail products focused on a single product category, such as clothing, carpet, books, or office supplies. A specialty store could face intense competition from big-box departmental chains, and therefore offering an adequate collection of the product type it specializes in is key in maintaining/growing its market.
| AOCIF | CDNAF | AOCIF / CDNAF | |
| Capitalization | 463M | 8B | 6% |
| EBITDA | 217M | 2.22B | 10% |
| Gain YTD | -24.217 | 8.089 | -299% |
| P/E Ratio | 11.74 | 12.22 | 96% |
| Revenue | 6.44B | 17.7B | 36% |
| Total Cash | 103M | 489M | 21% |
| Total Debt | 2.24B | 8.38B | 27% |
AOCIF | CDNAF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 49 | 79 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 53 Fair valued | 9 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 84 | 92 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 93 | 79 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 64 | 49 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 22 | 89 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 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.
CDNAF's Valuation (9) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for AOCIF (53). This means that CDNAF’s stock grew somewhat faster than AOCIF’s over the last 12 months.
AOCIF's Profit vs Risk Rating (84) in the null industry is in the same range as CDNAF (92). This means that AOCIF’s stock grew similarly to CDNAF’s over the last 12 months.
CDNAF's SMR Rating (79) in the null industry is in the same range as AOCIF (93). This means that CDNAF’s stock grew similarly to AOCIF’s over the last 12 months.
CDNAF's Price Growth Rating (49) in the null industry is in the same range as AOCIF (64). This means that CDNAF’s stock grew similarly to AOCIF’s over the last 12 months.
AOCIF's P/E Growth Rating (22) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CDNAF (89). This means that AOCIF’s stock grew significantly faster than CDNAF’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 (%) |
AOCIF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that AOCIF and BWTL have been poorly correlated (+33% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that AOCIF and BWTL's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To AOCIF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AOCIF | 100% | N/A | ||
| BWTL - AOCIF | 33% Poorly correlated | +10.54% | ||
| LEFUF - AOCIF | 29% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HPCRF - AOCIF | 26% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CDNAF - AOCIF | 17% Poorly correlated | +0.49% | ||
| VRM - AOCIF | 14% Poorly correlated | +3.33% | ||
More | ||||
CDNAF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CDNAF has been loosely correlated with PAG. These tickers have moved in lockstep 47% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CDNAF jumps, then PAG could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CDNAF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDNAF | 100% | +0.49% | ||
| PAG - CDNAF | 47% Loosely correlated | +2.03% | ||
| CWH - CDNAF | 45% Loosely correlated | +2.47% | ||
| ABG - CDNAF | 44% Loosely correlated | +4.06% | ||
| AN - CDNAF | 44% Loosely correlated | +2.05% | ||
| LAD - CDNAF | 44% Loosely correlated | +3.02% | ||
More | ||||