BAM
Price
$58.09
Change
+$0.08 (+0.14%)
Updated
Sep 26 closing price
Capitalization
93.65B
LBGUF
Price
$45.79
Change
+$1.58 (+3.57%)
Updated
Apr 7 closing price
Capitalization
12.68B
Interact to see
Advertisement

BAM vs LBGUF

Header iconBAM vs LBGUF Comparison
Open Charts BAM vs LBGUFBanner chart's image
Brookfield Asset Management
Price$58.09
Change+$0.08 (+0.14%)
Volume$1.73M
Capitalization93.65B
LE Lundbergfoeretagen AB
Price$45.79
Change+$1.58 (+3.57%)
Volume$200
Capitalization12.68B
BAM vs LBGUF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
BAM
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
BAM vs. LBGUF commentary
Sep 28, 2025

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 BAM is a Buy and LBGUF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Sep 28, 2025
Stock price -- (BAM: $58.09 vs. LBGUF: $45.79)
Brand notoriety: BAM and LBGUF are both not notable
BAM represents the Investment Managers, while LBGUF is part of the Industrial Conglomerates industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: BAM: 90% vs. LBGUF: 100%
Market capitalization -- BAM: $93.65B vs. LBGUF: $12.68B
BAM [@Investment Managers] is valued at $93.65B. LBGUF’s [@Industrial Conglomerates] market capitalization is $12.68B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Investment Managers] industry ranges from $179.08B to $0. The market cap for tickers in the [@Industrial Conglomerates] industry ranges from $132.18B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Investment Managers] industry is $7.37B. The average market capitalization across the [@Industrial Conglomerates] industry is $14.08B.

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).

BAM’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileLBGUF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

  • BAM’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • LBGUF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
According to our system of comparison, BAM is a better buy in the long-term than LBGUF.

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.

BAM’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish.

  • BAM’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 6 bearish.

Price Growth

BAM (@Investment Managers) experienced а -3.22% price change this week, while LBGUF (@Industrial Conglomerates) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Managers industry was -2.00%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.09%, and the average quarterly price growth was +22.98%.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Industrial Conglomerates industry was -1.16%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.12%, and the average quarterly price growth was +11.37%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Investment Managers (-2.00% weekly)

Investment Managers manage financial assets and other investments of clients. Management includes designing a short- or long-term strategy for buying/holding and selling of portfolio holdings. It can also include tax services and other aspects of financial planning as well. While it is perceived that the industry is faced with growing competition from robo-advisors/digital platforms and passive/ index-tracking funds, many investors still find value in actively managed in-person services that investment management companies often emphasize on. At the same time, many wealth managers are also incorporating digital initiatives/low cost options in addition to their in-person customized services. Their main sources of revenues are fees as a percentage of assets under management, in addition to a certain portion of clients’ gains from asset appreciation. BlackRock, Inc., Blackstone Group Inc and Brookfield Asset Management are some of the major investment management companies.

@Industrial Conglomerates (-1.16% weekly)

Industrial Conglomerates specialize in numerous types of products, most of which comprise industrial goods, while some also go towards meeting household needs. Honeywell (makes engineering services and aerospace systems), United Technologies Corporation(manufactures aircraft engines, aerospace systems, HVAC, elevators and escalators, fire and security, building systems, and industrial products, among others), 3M (over 60,000 products under several world-renowned brands, including adhesives, abrasives, laminates, passive fire protection, personal protective equipment, window films, paint protection films, dental and orthodontic products, electrical & electronic connecting and insulating materials, medical products, car-care products, electronic circuits, healthcare software and optical films).

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
BAM($93.6B) has a higher market cap than LBGUF($12.7B). BAM has higher P/E ratio than LBGUF: BAM (40.62) vs LBGUF (21.07). BAM YTD gains are higher at: 9.682 vs. LBGUF (-13.775). LBGUF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 13.4B vs. BAM (970M). LBGUF has more cash in the bank: 1.28B vs. BAM (480M). BAM has less debt than LBGUF: BAM (1.25B) vs LBGUF (20.6B). LBGUF has higher revenues than BAM: LBGUF (31.4B) vs BAM (835M).
BAMLBGUFBAM / LBGUF
Capitalization93.6B12.7B737%
EBITDA970M13.4B7%
Gain YTD9.682-13.775-70%
P/E Ratio40.6221.07193%
Revenue835M31.4B3%
Total Cash480M1.28B38%
Total Debt1.25B20.6B6%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
BAM vs LBGUF: Fundamental Ratings
BAM
LBGUF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
1450
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
20
Undervalued
38
Fair valued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
52100
SMR RATING
1..100
5798
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
5059
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
5318
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/a30

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.

BAM's Valuation (20) in the null industry is in the same range as LBGUF (38). This means that BAM’s stock grew similarly to LBGUF’s over the last 12 months.

BAM's Profit vs Risk Rating (52) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LBGUF (100). This means that BAM’s stock grew somewhat faster than LBGUF’s over the last 12 months.

BAM's SMR Rating (57) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LBGUF (98). This means that BAM’s stock grew somewhat faster than LBGUF’s over the last 12 months.

BAM's Price Growth Rating (50) in the null industry is in the same range as LBGUF (59). This means that BAM’s stock grew similarly to LBGUF’s over the last 12 months.

LBGUF's P/E Growth Rating (18) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BAM (53). This means that LBGUF’s stock grew somewhat faster than BAM’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
BAMLBGUF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
83%
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
60%
N/A
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
64%
N/A
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
69%
N/A
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
62%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
11%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
54%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
10%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 7 days ago
65%
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
65%
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
50%
N/A
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
54%
N/A
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
BAM
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
HERO33.580.41
+1.22%
Global X Video Games & Esports ETF
MDLV28.130.18
+0.64%
Morgan Dempsey Large Cap Value ETF
CIBR75.810.42
+0.56%
First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF
XONE49.650.02
+0.04%
BondBloxx Bloomberg One YrTrgDurUSTrsETF
CPSN26.57N/A
N/A
Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - November

LBGUF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, LBGUF has been loosely correlated with GMPXF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 42% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if LBGUF jumps, then GMPXF could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To LBGUF
1D Price
Change %
LBGUF100%
N/A
GMPXF - LBGUF
42%
Loosely correlated
-1.06%
KKR - LBGUF
22%
Poorly correlated
-1.22%
BAM - LBGUF
21%
Poorly correlated
+0.14%
JBARF - LBGUF
2%
Poorly correlated
-3.67%
JBAXY - LBGUF
1%
Poorly correlated
+0.75%
More