BWLKF vs CCOEF
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 BWLKF is a Hold and CCOEF 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).
BWLKF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileCCOEF’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).
- BWLKF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- CCOEF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
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.
BWLKF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CCOEF’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).
- BWLKF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 2 bearish.
- CCOEF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 1 bearish.
Price Growth
BWLKF (@Packaged Software) experienced а -11.22% price change this week, while CCOEF (@Packaged Software) price change was -3.65% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Packaged Software industry was +2.15%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +7.00%, and the average quarterly price growth was +16.71%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Packaged Software (+2.15% weekly)Packaged software comprises multiple software programs bundled together and sold as a group. For example, Microsoft Office includes multiple applications such as Excel, Word, and PowerPoint. In some cases, buying a bundled product is cheaper than purchasing each item individually[s20] . Microsoft Corporation, Oracle Corp. and Adobe are some major American packaged software makers.
| BWLKF | CCOEF | BWLKF / CCOEF | |
| Capitalization | 20M | 9.51B | 0% |
| EBITDA | -3.39M | 67.8B | -0% |
| Gain YTD | -2.778 | -3.653 | 76% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 27.25 | - |
| Revenue | 6.02M | 145B | 0% |
| Total Cash | 373K | 109B | 0% |
| Total Debt | 225K | 7.84B | 0% |
BWLKF | CCOEF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 95 Overvalued | 58 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 10 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 10 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 90 | 50 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 13 | |
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.
CCOEF's Valuation (58) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BWLKF (95). This means that CCOEF’s stock grew somewhat faster than BWLKF’s over the last 12 months.
CCOEF's Profit vs Risk Rating (10) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BWLKF (100). This means that CCOEF’s stock grew significantly faster than BWLKF’s over the last 12 months.
CCOEF's SMR Rating (10) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BWLKF (100). This means that CCOEF’s stock grew significantly faster than BWLKF’s over the last 12 months.
CCOEF's Price Growth Rating (50) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BWLKF (90). This means that CCOEF’s stock grew somewhat faster than BWLKF’s over the last 12 months.
CCOEF's P/E Growth Rating (13) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BWLKF (100). This means that CCOEF’s stock grew significantly faster than BWLKF’s over the last 12 months.
| BWLKF | CCOEF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 69% | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 61% | 12 days ago 46% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 62% | 12 days ago 46% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 56% | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 60% | 12 days ago 48% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 55% | 12 days ago 44% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 86% | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 86% | N/A |
BWLKF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that BWLKF and PET have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that BWLKF and PET's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To BWLKF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BWLKF | 100% | N/A | ||
| PET - BWLKF | 21% Poorly correlated | -1.72% | ||
| AIMLF - BWLKF | 20% Poorly correlated | +20.81% | ||
| CCOEF - BWLKF | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BTGHF - BWLKF | 8% Poorly correlated | +26.89% | ||
| BIDCF - BWLKF | 6% Poorly correlated | -2.62% | ||
More | ||||
CCOEF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CCOEF and ASFT have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CCOEF and ASFT's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CCOEF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCOEF | 100% | N/A | ||
| ASFT - CCOEF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ADSK - CCOEF | 25% Poorly correlated | +0.47% | ||
| RXT - CCOEF | 22% Poorly correlated | +3.35% | ||
| GBTG - CCOEF | 22% Poorly correlated | +0.33% | ||
| ONEI - CCOEF | 21% Poorly correlated | -6.85% | ||
More | ||||