BMDPF vs CNBZ
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 BMDPF is a Hold and CNBZ 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).
BMDPF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileCNBZ’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- BMDPF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- CNBZ’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
BMDPF (@Regional Banks) experienced а +0.87% price change this week, while CNBZ (@Regional Banks) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Regional Banks industry was +0.40%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +3.87%, and the average quarterly price growth was +18.03%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Regional Banks (+0.40% weekly)Regional banks have a smaller reach than major banks, and cater mostly to one region of a country, such as a state or within a group of states. They offer services often similar – albeit with some limitations/smaller scale – compared to major banks. Taking deposits, making loans, mortgages, leases, credit cards , fund management, insurance and investment banking. SunTrust Banks, State Street Corp., M&T Bank Corp. are some examples of U.S. regional banks.
| BMDPF | CNBZ | BMDPF / CNBZ | |
| Capitalization | 301M | 16M | 1,881% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 118.868 | 4.513 | 2,634% |
| P/E Ratio | 2.88 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 3.14B | 10.1M | 31,129% |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 9.27B | N/A | - |
BMDPF | CNBZ | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 11 Undervalued | 86 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 81 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 8 | 19 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 40 | 59 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 70 | 65 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | n/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.
BMDPF's Valuation (11) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CNBZ (86). This means that BMDPF’s stock grew significantly faster than CNBZ’s over the last 12 months.
CNBZ's Profit vs Risk Rating (81) in the null industry is in the same range as BMDPF (100). This means that CNBZ’s stock grew similarly to BMDPF’s over the last 12 months.
BMDPF's SMR Rating (8) in the null industry is in the same range as CNBZ (19). This means that BMDPF’s stock grew similarly to CNBZ’s over the last 12 months.
BMDPF's Price Growth Rating (40) in the null industry is in the same range as CNBZ (59). This means that BMDPF’s stock grew similarly to CNBZ’s over the last 12 months.
CNBZ's P/E Growth Rating (65) in the null industry is in the same range as BMDPF (70). This means that CNBZ’s stock grew similarly to BMDPF’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 (%) |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| BLKC | 26.21 | 0.36 | +1.39% |
| Invesco Aln Glxy Blkh Usr&Dctrzd Cmr ETF | |||
| CLOZ | 27.02 | 0.04 | +0.15% |
| Panagram BBB-B Clo ETF | |||
| FCEF | 21.85 | -0.09 | -0.41% |
| First Trust Income Opportunity ETF | |||
| LRGF | 60.48 | -0.87 | -1.42% |
| iShares U.S. Equity Factor ETF | |||
| AESR | 17.30 | -0.30 | -1.68% |
| Anfield US Equity Sector Rotation ETF | |||
BMDPF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, BMDPF has been loosely correlated with PBLOF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 43% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if BMDPF jumps, then PBLOF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To BMDPF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMDPF | 100% | N/A | ||
| PBLOF - BMDPF | 43% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| KMERF - BMDPF | 29% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CNBZ - BMDPF | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MTRBF - BMDPF | 14% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| INTR - BMDPF | 4% Poorly correlated | +0.34% | ||
More | ||||
CNBZ and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CNBZ has been loosely correlated with ACFL. These tickers have moved in lockstep 33% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CNBZ jumps, then ACFL could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CNBZ | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNBZ | 100% | N/A | ||
| ACFL - CNBZ | 33% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| BMDPF - CNBZ | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| VTYB - CNBZ | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ABBB - CNBZ | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| COSO - CNBZ | 12% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||