BICEF
Price
$60.48
Change
-$2.52 (-4.00%)
Updated
Oct 28 closing price
Capitalization
2.23B
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
CAWW
Price
$0.72
Change
+$0.03 (+4.35%)
Updated
Nov 17 closing price
Capitalization
5.44M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

BICEF vs CAWW

Header iconBICEF vs CAWW Comparison
Open Charts BICEF vs CAWWBanner chart's image
Bic Stec
Price$60.48
Change-$2.52 (-4.00%)
Volume$700
Capitalization2.23B
CCA Industries
Price$0.72
Change+$0.03 (+4.35%)
Volume$2.4K
Capitalization5.44M
BICEF vs CAWW Comparison Chart in %
BICEF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
CAWW
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
BICEF vs. CAWW 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 BICEF is a Hold and CAWW is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Nov 20, 2025
Stock price -- (BICEF: $60.48 vs. CAWW: $0.72)
Brand notoriety: BICEF and CAWW are both not notable
Both companies represent the Household/Personal Care industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: BICEF: 30% vs. CAWW: 20%
Market capitalization -- BICEF: $2.23B vs. CAWW: $5.44M
BICEF [@Household/Personal Care] is valued at $2.23B. CAWW’s [@Household/Personal Care] market capitalization is $5.44M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Household/Personal Care] industry ranges from $343.48B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Household/Personal Care] industry is $20.37B.

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).

BICEF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileCAWW’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

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

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.

BICEF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CAWW’s TA Score has 5 bullish TA indicator(s).

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

Price Growth

BICEF (@Household/Personal Care) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while CAWW (@Household/Personal Care) price change was +3.75% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Household/Personal Care industry was -2.54%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -8.35%, and the average quarterly price growth was +2709.82%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Household/Personal Care (-2.54% weekly)

Household/Personal Care companies sell products for home cleaning and/or personal hygiene and grooming purposes. Products of this industry include detergents, shampoos, soaps, cosmetics, fabric conditioners and infant care fragrances. Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Estee Lauder and Colgate-Palmolive are some of the biggest names in the business. A lot of the products become a necessary part of people’s daily routine, and therefore the industry is relatively less vulnerable to macroeconomic downturns. At the same time, product quality, consumer safety, and ease of use are extremely critical factors for a company to survive competition and earn recognition in this industry.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
BICEF($2.23B) has a higher market cap than CAWW($5.44M). CAWW YTD gains are higher at: 20.000 vs. BICEF (-8.778). BICEF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 384M vs. CAWW (596K). BICEF has more cash in the bank: 313M vs. CAWW (84.4K). CAWW has less debt than BICEF: CAWW (1.4M) vs BICEF (365M). BICEF has higher revenues than CAWW: BICEF (2.13B) vs CAWW (16.6M).
BICEFCAWWBICEF / CAWW
Capitalization2.23B5.44M40,871%
EBITDA384M596K64,430%
Gain YTD-8.77820.000-44%
P/E Ratio12.35N/A-
Revenue2.13B16.6M12,855%
Total Cash313M84.4K370,853%
Total Debt365M1.4M26,016%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
BICEF vs CAWW: Fundamental Ratings
BICEF
CAWW
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
3190
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
7
Undervalued
84
Overvalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
76100
SMR RATING
1..100
687
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
6049
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
4099
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
5528

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.

BICEF's Valuation (7) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CAWW (84). This means that BICEF’s stock grew significantly faster than CAWW’s over the last 12 months.

BICEF's Profit vs Risk Rating (76) in the null industry is in the same range as CAWW (100). This means that BICEF’s stock grew similarly to CAWW’s over the last 12 months.

CAWW's SMR Rating (7) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BICEF (68). This means that CAWW’s stock grew somewhat faster than BICEF’s over the last 12 months.

CAWW's Price Growth Rating (49) in the null industry is in the same range as BICEF (60). This means that CAWW’s stock grew similarly to BICEF’s over the last 12 months.

BICEF's P/E Growth Rating (40) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CAWW (99). This means that BICEF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CAWW’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
BICEFCAWW
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
33%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
87%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
44%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
51%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
35%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
53%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
36%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
52%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
27%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
56%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Aroon
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
48%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
BICEF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
CAWW
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
IDN7.120.39
+5.79%
Intellicheck
PAVM0.38N/A
+1.12%
PAVmed
VSTM9.280.01
+0.16%
Verastem
LDOS189.180.07
+0.04%
Leidos Holdings
VERX19.63-0.08
-0.41%
Vertex

BICEF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that BICEF and CAWW have been poorly correlated (+6% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that BICEF and CAWW's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To BICEF
1D Price
Change %
BICEF100%
N/A
CAWW - BICEF
6%
Poorly correlated
N/A
BDRFY - BICEF
6%
Poorly correlated
-0.53%
HEGIY - BICEF
-0%
Poorly correlated
+0.86%
HENKY - BICEF
-2%
Poorly correlated
+0.78%
ETTYF - BICEF
-2%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

CAWW and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CAWW and BICEY have been poorly correlated (+9% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CAWW and BICEY's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CAWW
1D Price
Change %
CAWW100%
N/A
BICEY - CAWW
9%
Poorly correlated
-2.35%
BICEF - CAWW
6%
Poorly correlated
N/A
ETTYF - CAWW
-2%
Poorly correlated
N/A
HEGIY - CAWW
-3%
Poorly correlated
+0.86%
BDRFY - CAWW
-4%
Poorly correlated
-0.53%
More