BOKF
Price
$112.89
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Oct 16 closing price
4 days until earnings call
LRCDF
Price
$20.15
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Sep 30 closing price
Ad is loading...

BOKF vs LRCDF

Header iconBOKF vs LRCDF Comparison
Open Charts BOKF vs LRCDFBanner chart's image
BOK Financial
Price$112.89
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$139.84K
CapitalizationN/A
Laurentian Bank of Canada
Price$20.15
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$600
CapitalizationN/A
View a ticker or compare two or three
BOKF vs LRCDF Comparison Chart
Loading...
BOKF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if shorted
Show more...
VS
BOKF vs. LRCDF commentary
Oct 18, 2024

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 BOKF is a Buy and LRCDF is a Hold.

COMPARISON
Comparison
Oct 18, 2024
Stock price -- (BOKF: $114.66 vs. LRCDF: $19.61)
Brand notoriety: BOKF and LRCDF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Regional Banks industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: BOKF: 92% vs. LRCDF: 18%
Market capitalization -- BOKF: $5.95B vs. LRCDF: $1.3B
BOKF [@Regional Banks] is valued at $5.95B. LRCDF’s [@Regional Banks] market capitalization is $1.3B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Regional Banks] industry ranges from $133.96B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Regional Banks] industry is $5.83B.

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).

BOKF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileLRCDF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).

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

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.

BOKF’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish.

  • BOKF’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 4 bearish.

Price Growth

BOKF (@Regional Banks) experienced а +9.09% price change this week, while LRCDF (@Regional Banks) price change was +2.40% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Regional Banks industry was -0.91%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.77%, and the average quarterly price growth was +14.82%.

Reported Earning Dates

BOKF is expected to report earnings on Jan 22, 2025.

Industries' Descriptions

@Regional Banks (-0.91% 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.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
BOKF($5.95B) has a higher market cap than LRCDF($1.3B). BOKF has higher P/E ratio than LRCDF: BOKF (11.37) vs LRCDF (8.54). BOKF YTD gains are higher at: 34.209 vs. LRCDF (-8.555). BOKF has less debt than LRCDF: BOKF (7.82B) vs LRCDF (15.4B). BOKF has higher revenues than LRCDF: BOKF (1.98B) vs LRCDF (1.03B).
BOKFLRCDFBOKF / LRCDF
Capitalization5.95B1.3B456%
EBITDAN/AN/A-
Gain YTD34.209-8.555-400%
P/E Ratio11.378.54133%
Revenue1.98B1.03B191%
Total CashN/AN/A-
Total Debt7.82B15.4B51%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
BOKF vs LRCDF: Fundamental Ratings
BOKF
LRCDF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
1788
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
74
Overvalued
5
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
35100
SMR RATING
1..100
1012
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4258
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
1844
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
8550

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.

LRCDF's Valuation (5) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BOKF (74) in the Regional Banks industry. This means that LRCDF’s stock grew significantly faster than BOKF’s over the last 12 months.

BOKF's Profit vs Risk Rating (35) in the Regional Banks industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LRCDF (100) in the null industry. This means that BOKF’s stock grew somewhat faster than LRCDF’s over the last 12 months.

BOKF's SMR Rating (10) in the Regional Banks industry is in the same range as LRCDF (12) in the null industry. This means that BOKF’s stock grew similarly to LRCDF’s over the last 12 months.

BOKF's Price Growth Rating (42) in the Regional Banks industry is in the same range as LRCDF (58) in the null industry. This means that BOKF’s stock grew similarly to LRCDF’s over the last 12 months.

BOKF's P/E Growth Rating (18) in the Regional Banks industry is in the same range as LRCDF (44) in the null industry. This means that BOKF’s stock grew similarly to LRCDF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
BOKF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
58%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
61%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
63%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
60%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
60%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
59%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
59%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 23 days ago
63%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
55%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
48%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Ad is loading...
BOKF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if shorted
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
GME21.660.39
+1.83%
GameStop Corp
BTC.X67612.720000571.609400
+0.85%
Bitcoin cryptocurrency
TSLA221.331.76
+0.80%
Tesla
SPY582.302.52
+0.43%
SPDR® S&P 500® ETF Trust
AAPL231.78-2.07
-0.89%
Apple

BOKF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, BOKF has been closely correlated with FFBC. These tickers have moved in lockstep 86% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if BOKF jumps, then FFBC could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To BOKF
1D Price
Change %
BOKF100%
+1.72%
FFBC - BOKF
86%
Closely correlated
+1.63%
TRMK - BOKF
82%
Closely correlated
+2.49%
FNB - BOKF
81%
Closely correlated
+2.50%
HWC - BOKF
81%
Closely correlated
-0.84%
ONB - BOKF
80%
Closely correlated
+2.35%
More

LRCDF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that LRCDF and CBWBF have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LRCDF and CBWBF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To LRCDF
1D Price
Change %
LRCDF100%
N/A
CBWBF - LRCDF
32%
Poorly correlated
N/A
BOKF - LRCDF
32%
Poorly correlated
+1.72%
SFBS - LRCDF
27%
Poorly correlated
+3.05%
CATY - LRCDF
27%
Poorly correlated
+1.44%
FFBC - LRCDF
26%
Poorly correlated
+1.63%
More