CBDBY vs ELPQF
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 CBDBY is a Hold and ELPQF is a Buy.
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).
CBDBY’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileELPQF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CBDBY’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- ELPQF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
CBDBY (@Department Stores) experienced а -8.48% price change this week, while ELPQF (@Department Stores) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Department Stores industry was +22.63%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +3.47%, and the average quarterly price growth was +19.73%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Department Stores (+22.63% weekly)A department store sells a wide variety of consumer goods under different “departments,” including (but not necessarily limited to) apparel, household appliances, home furnishings, personal care products, cosmetics, consumer electronics. During healthy macroeconomic conditions, consumers typically won’t shy away from big-ticket purchases; but during a downturn, consumer spending might get limited to the most necessary/daily essentials. Several department stores purchase items on bulk from manufacturers for resale to consumers at a profit. Some of the largest department stores companies in the U.S. include Kohl’s Corporation, Macy’s Inc., and Ollie’s Bargain Outlet Holdings Inc.
| CBDBY | ELPQF | CBDBY / ELPQF | |
| Capitalization | 236M | 6.92B | 3% |
| EBITDA | 2.15B | 40.6B | 5% |
| Gain YTD | -47.375 | -14.307 | 331% |
| P/E Ratio | 2.16 | 7.08 | 30% |
| Revenue | 19.4B | 207B | 9% |
| Total Cash | 2.46B | 20.1B | 12% |
| Total Debt | 8.54B | 43.4B | 20% |
CBDBY | ELPQF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 21 Undervalued | 13 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 91 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 99 | 56 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 87 | 63 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 68 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 65 |
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.
ELPQF's Valuation (13) in the null industry is in the same range as CBDBY (21) in the Food Retail industry. This means that ELPQF’s stock grew similarly to CBDBY’s over the last 12 months.
ELPQF's Profit vs Risk Rating (91) in the null industry is in the same range as CBDBY (100) in the Food Retail industry. This means that ELPQF’s stock grew similarly to CBDBY’s over the last 12 months.
ELPQF's SMR Rating (56) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CBDBY (99) in the Food Retail industry. This means that ELPQF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CBDBY’s over the last 12 months.
ELPQF's Price Growth Rating (63) in the null industry is in the same range as CBDBY (87) in the Food Retail industry. This means that ELPQF’s stock grew similarly to CBDBY’s over the last 12 months.
ELPQF's P/E Growth Rating (68) in the null industry is in the same range as CBDBY (100) in the Food Retail industry. This means that ELPQF’s stock grew similarly to CBDBY’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 (%) |
CBDBY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CBDBY and KSS have been poorly correlated (+20% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CBDBY and KSS's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CBDBY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBDBY | 100% | +5.25% | ||
| KSS - CBDBY | 20% Poorly correlated | -3.33% | ||
| AONNY - CBDBY | 9% Poorly correlated | +1.57% | ||
| M - CBDBY | 6% Poorly correlated | -0.51% | ||
| ELPQF - CBDBY | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HDVTY - CBDBY | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
ELPQF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that ELPQF and DDS have been poorly correlated (+12% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that ELPQF and DDS's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To ELPQF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELPQF | 100% | N/A | ||
| DDS - ELPQF | 12% Poorly correlated | -1.42% | ||
| KSS - ELPQF | 10% Poorly correlated | -3.33% | ||
| JWN - ELPQF | 7% Poorly correlated | -0.65% | ||
| CBDBY - ELPQF | 4% Poorly correlated | +5.25% | ||
| M - ELPQF | 2% Poorly correlated | -0.51% | ||
More | ||||