BBKCF
Price
$0.06
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Nov 19 closing price
Capitalization
19.07M
12 days until earnings call
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
CGXYY
Price
$36.11
Change
+$0.59 (+1.66%)
Updated
Nov 11 closing price
Capitalization
21.87B
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

BBKCF vs CGXYY

Header iconBBKCF vs CGXYY Comparison
Open Charts BBKCF vs CGXYYBanner chart's image
BIGG Digital Assets
Price$0.06
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$56K
Capitalization19.07M
China Galaxy Securities
Price$36.11
Change+$0.59 (+1.66%)
Volume$3.52K
Capitalization21.87B
BBKCF vs CGXYY Comparison Chart in %
BBKCF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
CGXYY
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
BBKCF vs. CGXYY commentary
Nov 20, 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 BBKCF is a Hold and CGXYY is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Nov 20, 2025
Stock price -- (BBKCF: $0.06 vs. CGXYY: $36.11)
Brand notoriety: BBKCF and CGXYY are both not notable
Both companies represent the Investment Banks/Brokers industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: BBKCF: 23% vs. CGXYY: 432%
Market capitalization -- BBKCF: $19.07M vs. CGXYY: $21.87B
BBKCF [@Investment Banks/Brokers] is valued at $19.07M. CGXYY’s [@Investment Banks/Brokers] market capitalization is $21.87B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Investment Banks/Brokers] industry ranges from $928.5B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Investment Banks/Brokers] industry is $10.43B.

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).

BBKCF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileCGXYY’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).

  • BBKCF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
  • CGXYY’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
According to our system of comparison, CGXYY is a better buy in the long-term than BBKCF.

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.

BBKCF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CGXYY’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • BBKCF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 5 bearish.
  • CGXYY’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 3 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, CGXYY is a better buy in the short-term than BBKCF.

Price Growth

BBKCF (@Investment Banks/Brokers) experienced а -14.01% price change this week, while CGXYY (@Investment Banks/Brokers) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Banks/Brokers industry was -8.20%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -8.74%, and the average quarterly price growth was +19.35%.

Reported Earning Dates

BBKCF is expected to report earnings on Dec 02, 2025.

Industries' Descriptions

@Investment Banks/Brokers (-8.20% weekly)

These banks specialize in underwriting (helping companies with debt financing or equity issuances), IPOs, facilitating mergers and other corporate reorganizations and acting as a broker or financial advisor for institutions. They might also trade securities on their own accounts. Investment banks potentially thrive on expanding its network of clients, since that could help them increase profits. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and CME Group Inc are some of the largest investment banking companies.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
CGXYY($21.9B) has a higher market cap than BBKCF($19.1M). CGXYY YTD gains are higher at: 68.986 vs. BBKCF (-54.024). CGXYY has higher revenues than BBKCF: CGXYY (26.3B) vs BBKCF (13.1M).
BBKCFCGXYYBBKCF / CGXYY
Capitalization19.1M21.9B0%
EBITDA-10.24MN/A-
Gain YTD-54.02468.986-78%
P/E RatioN/A256.67-
Revenue13.1M26.3B0%
Total Cash5.8MN/A-
Total Debt36.9KN/A-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
BBKCF vs CGXYY: Fundamental Ratings
BBKCF
CGXYY
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
7998
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
98
Overvalued
22
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
1004
SMR RATING
1..100
978
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
9141
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
8443
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
18n/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.

CGXYY's Valuation (22) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BBKCF (98). This means that CGXYY’s stock grew significantly faster than BBKCF’s over the last 12 months.

CGXYY's Profit vs Risk Rating (4) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BBKCF (100). This means that CGXYY’s stock grew significantly faster than BBKCF’s over the last 12 months.

CGXYY's SMR Rating (8) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BBKCF (97). This means that CGXYY’s stock grew significantly faster than BBKCF’s over the last 12 months.

CGXYY's Price Growth Rating (41) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BBKCF (91). This means that CGXYY’s stock grew somewhat faster than BBKCF’s over the last 12 months.

CGXYY's P/E Growth Rating (43) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BBKCF (84). This means that CGXYY’s stock grew somewhat faster than BBKCF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
BBKCFCGXYY
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
90%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
44%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
86%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
16%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
90%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
25%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 6 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
21%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
90%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
27%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
90%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
15%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 8 days ago
88%
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 10 days ago
90%
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
90%
N/A
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
90%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
23%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
BBKCF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
CGXYY
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
SPXV72.270.24
+0.34%
ProShares S&P 500® ex-Health Care
MDY577.890.70
+0.12%
SPDR® S&P MIDCAP 400 ETF Trust
FGSM28.600.01
+0.02%
Frontier Asset Global Small-Cap Equity ETF
XTL139.080.01
+0.01%
State Street® SPDR® S&P® Telecom ETF
IHF46.94-0.38
-0.80%
iShares US Healthcare Providers ETF

CGXYY and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CGXYY and CIIHF have been poorly correlated (+0% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CGXYY and CIIHF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CGXYY
1D Price
Change %
CGXYY100%
N/A
CIIHF - CGXYY
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CIIHY - CGXYY
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
BBKCF - CGXYY
-0%
Poorly correlated
-3.67%
CCORF - CGXYY
-0%
Poorly correlated
+1.02%
CFNCF - CGXYY
-2%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More