BTSBF vs RVLCF
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 BTSBF is a Hold and RVLCF 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).
BTSBF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileRVLCF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- BTSBF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- RVLCF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
BTSBF (@Casinos/Gaming) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while RVLCF (@Casinos/Gaming) price change was +20.28% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Casinos/Gaming industry was -2.55%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -1.53%, and the average quarterly price growth was +0.81%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Casinos/Gaming (-2.55% weekly)Casinos/Gaming includes companies that operate casinos, gaming services, horse racing and harness racing facilities. Think Las Vegas Sands Corp., MGM Resorts International and Wynn Resorts, Ltd. In periods of strong economic growth, consumers tend to spend on discretionary/leisure activities like gambling or games; but consumption is likely to slow down when there’s economic sluggishness.
| BTSBF | RVLCF | BTSBF / RVLCF | |
| Capitalization | 1.49B | 64M | 2,328% |
| EBITDA | 243M | -27.6M | -880% |
| Gain YTD | -3.061 | -86.214 | 4% |
| P/E Ratio | 7.99 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 917M | 33.8M | 2,713% |
| Total Cash | 240M | 8.54M | 2,809% |
| Total Debt | 186M | 481K | 38,669% |
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
BTSBF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that BTSBF and TBTC have been poorly correlated (+20% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that BTSBF and TBTC's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To BTSBF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTSBF | 100% | N/A | ||
| TBTC - BTSBF | 20% Poorly correlated | -1.22% | ||
| GAMB - BTSBF | 5% Poorly correlated | -5.31% | ||
| CDRO - BTSBF | 5% Poorly correlated | -1.99% | ||
| JPOTF - BTSBF | 4% Poorly correlated | -8.51% | ||
| LTRY - BTSBF | 2% Poorly correlated | +2.58% | ||
More | ||||
RVLCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that RVLCF and RANKF have been poorly correlated (+29% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that RVLCF and RANKF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To RVLCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RVLCF | 100% | N/A | ||
| RANKF - RVLCF | 29% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| JPOTF - RVLCF | 6% Poorly correlated | -8.51% | ||
| GAMB - RVLCF | 1% Poorly correlated | -5.31% | ||
| CDRO - RVLCF | 0% Poorly correlated | -1.99% | ||
| BTSBF - RVLCF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||