BLVDF vs CCORF
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 BLVDF is a Hold and CCORF 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).
BLVDF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileCCORF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- BLVDF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- CCORF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
BLVDF (@Investment Banks/Brokers) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while CCORF (@Investment Banks/Brokers) price change was +3.48% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Banks/Brokers industry was +1.30%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +11.60%, and the average quarterly price growth was +12.15%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Investment Banks/Brokers (+1.30% 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.
| BLVDF | CCORF | BLVDF / CCORF | |
| Capitalization | 15.1M | 624M | 2% |
| EBITDA | -468.67K | 88.1M | -1% |
| Gain YTD | 20.000 | 21.012 | 95% |
| P/E Ratio | 16.78 | 10.94 | 153% |
| Revenue | 0 | 1.51B | - |
| Total Cash | 112K | 1.72B | 0% |
| Total Debt | N/A | 434M | - |
BLVDF | CCORF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 92 | 34 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 71 Overvalued | 16 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 64 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 96 | 90 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 87 | 47 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 9 | 14 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 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.
CCORF's Valuation (16) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BLVDF (71). This means that CCORF’s stock grew somewhat faster than BLVDF’s over the last 12 months.
CCORF's Profit vs Risk Rating (64) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BLVDF (100). This means that CCORF’s stock grew somewhat faster than BLVDF’s over the last 12 months.
CCORF's SMR Rating (90) in the null industry is in the same range as BLVDF (96). This means that CCORF’s stock grew similarly to BLVDF’s over the last 12 months.
CCORF's Price Growth Rating (47) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BLVDF (87). This means that CCORF’s stock grew somewhat faster than BLVDF’s over the last 12 months.
BLVDF's P/E Growth Rating (9) in the null industry is in the same range as CCORF (14). This means that BLVDF’s stock grew similarly to CCORF’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 (%) |
BLVDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, BLVDF has been loosely correlated with BOMXF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 37% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if BLVDF jumps, then BOMXF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To BLVDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLVDF | 100% | N/A | ||
| BOMXF - BLVDF | 37% Loosely correlated | +1.69% | ||
| MS - BLVDF | 24% Poorly correlated | +6.50% | ||
| MXLGF - BLVDF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| JEF - BLVDF | 21% Poorly correlated | +1.77% | ||
| CCORF - BLVDF | 9% Poorly correlated | +0.67% | ||
More | ||||
CCORF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CCORF has been loosely correlated with CLSK. These tickers have moved in lockstep 34% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CCORF jumps, then CLSK could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CCORF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCORF | 100% | +0.67% | ||
| CLSK - CCORF | 34% Loosely correlated | +5.43% | ||
| MQBKY - CCORF | 33% Poorly correlated | +0.49% | ||
| HUT - CCORF | 31% Poorly correlated | +9.60% | ||
| WULF - CCORF | 30% Poorly correlated | +12.80% | ||
| HIVE - CCORF | 29% Poorly correlated | +3.60% | ||
More | ||||