BAM
Price
$61.41
Change
-$0.70 (-1.13%)
Updated
Aug 15 closing price
Capitalization
99.52B
SHNWF
Price
$5.33
Change
+$0.02 (+0.38%)
Updated
Aug 6 closing price
Capitalization
8.43B
Interact to see
Advertisement

BAM vs SHNWF

Header iconBAM vs SHNWF Comparison
Open Charts BAM vs SHNWFBanner chart's image
Brookfield Asset Management
Price$61.41
Change-$0.70 (-1.13%)
Volume$920.37K
Capitalization99.52B
Schroders
Price$5.33
Change+$0.02 (+0.38%)
Volume$5.87K
Capitalization8.43B
BAM vs SHNWF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
BAM
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
SHNWF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
BAM vs. SHNWF commentary
Aug 16, 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 Hold and SHNWF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Aug 16, 2025
Stock price -- (BAM: $61.41 vs. SHNWF: $5.33)
Brand notoriety: BAM and SHNWF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Investment Managers industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: BAM: 40% vs. SHNWF: 325%
Market capitalization -- BAM: $99.52B vs. SHNWF: $8.43B
BAM [@Investment Managers] is valued at $99.52B. SHNWF’s [@Investment Managers] market capitalization is $8.43B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Investment Managers] industry ranges from $175.76B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Investment Managers] industry is $7.67B.

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 whileSHNWF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

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

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 while SHNWF’s TA Score has 1 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • BAM’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 5 bearish.
  • SHNWF’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 3 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, BAM is a better buy in the short-term than SHNWF.

Price Growth

BAM (@Investment Managers) experienced а +0.24% price change this week, while SHNWF (@Investment Managers) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Managers industry was +0.96%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.72%, and the average quarterly price growth was +13.52%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Investment Managers (+0.96% 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.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
BAM($99.5B) has a higher market cap than SHNWF($8.43B). BAM has higher P/E ratio than SHNWF: BAM (42.94) vs SHNWF (17.60). SHNWF YTD gains are higher at: 26.905 vs. BAM (15.116). BAM has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 886M vs. SHNWF (655M). SHNWF has more cash in the bank: 7.06B vs. BAM (332M). SHNWF has less debt than BAM: SHNWF (588M) vs BAM (639M). SHNWF has higher revenues than BAM: SHNWF (3.02B) vs BAM (543M).
BAMSHNWFBAM / SHNWF
Capitalization99.5B8.43B1,181%
EBITDA886M655M135%
Gain YTD15.11626.90556%
P/E Ratio42.9417.60244%
Revenue543M3.02B18%
Total Cash332M7.06B5%
Total Debt639M588M109%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
BAM: Fundamental Ratings
BAM
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
65
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
22
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
48
SMR RATING
1..100
60
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
45
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
34
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
50

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.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
BAMSHNWF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
66%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
77%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
65%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
62%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
71%
N/A
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
66%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
66%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
69%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
47%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
63%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
46%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
66%
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
64%
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
53%
N/A
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
59%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
49%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
BAM
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
SHNWF
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 %
AUGM33.280.02
+0.05%
FT Vest U.S. Eq Max Buffr ETF - Aug
DUHP36.81-0.04
-0.11%
Dimensional US High Profitability ETF
HYHG64.52-0.16
-0.25%
ProShares High Yield—Interest Rate Hdgd
SMHB4.33-0.02
-0.51%
ETRACS 2xMnthly Py Lvrgd US SmCpHiDivETN
QQH72.30-0.49
-0.67%
HCM Defender 100 Index ETF

SHNWF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that SHNWF and STT have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SHNWF and STT's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To SHNWF
1D Price
Change %
SHNWF100%
N/A
STT - SHNWF
22%
Poorly correlated
-2.23%
FNCSF - SHNWF
21%
Poorly correlated
N/A
BAM - SHNWF
12%
Poorly correlated
-1.13%
BBUC - SHNWF
11%
Poorly correlated
+2.50%
GAMI - SHNWF
6%
Poorly correlated
-0.33%
More