Advertisement
CBLUF vs NITO
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 CBLUF is a Buy and NITO 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).
CBLUF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileNITO’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CBLUF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- NITO’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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.
CBLUF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while NITO’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CBLUF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 1 bearish.
- NITO’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 7 bearish.
Price Growth
CBLUF (@Chemicals: Agricultural) experienced а +22.17% price change this week, while NITO (@Chemicals: Agricultural) price change was +1.40% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Chemicals: Agricultural industry was +2.32%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -2.48%, and the average quarterly price growth was -5.17%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Chemicals: Agricultural (+2.32% weekly)The agricultural chemicals sector includes companies that produce chemical products for the agricultural industry applications like crop protection, animal health, biotechnology and pharmaceutical-related products. Some of the largest agricultural chemicals producers include Nutrien Ltd., Corteva Inc., and FMC Corporation.
| CBLUF | NITO | CBLUF / NITO | |
| Capitalization | 1.15B | 3.87M | 29,778% |
| EBITDA | 3.25B | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 15.277 | -3.629 | -421% |
| P/E Ratio | 4.46 | 0.07 | 6,653% |
| Revenue | 13.4B | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | 11.2B | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 1.05B | N/A | - |
CBLUF | NITO | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 33 | 15 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 12 Undervalued | 75 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 45 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 69 | 99 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 79 | 93 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 6 | 59 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
CBLUF's Valuation (12) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for NITO (75). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew somewhat faster than NITO’s over the last 12 months.
CBLUF's Profit vs Risk Rating (45) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for NITO (100). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew somewhat faster than NITO’s over the last 12 months.
CBLUF's SMR Rating (69) in the null industry is in the same range as NITO (99). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew similarly to NITO’s over the last 12 months.
CBLUF's Price Growth Rating (79) in the null industry is in the same range as NITO (93). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew similarly to NITO’s over the last 12 months.
CBLUF's P/E Growth Rating (6) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for NITO (59). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew somewhat faster than NITO’s over the last 12 months.
| CBLUF | NITO | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 36% | 2 days ago 90% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 22% | 2 days ago 81% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 89% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 90% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 24% | 2 days ago 77% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 22% | 2 days ago 90% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 83% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | 9 days ago 90% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 90% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 36% | 2 days ago 85% |
Advertisement
CBLUF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CBLUF and ENFY have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CBLUF and ENFY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CBLUF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBLUF | 100% | +22.17% | ||
| ENFY - CBLUF | 21% Poorly correlated | +1.27% | ||
| SBMSF - CBLUF | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NITO - CBLUF | 3% Poorly correlated | +1.83% | ||
| YARIY - CBLUF | 3% Poorly correlated | -3.28% | ||
| LVRO - CBLUF | 2% Poorly correlated | -1.21% | ||
More | ||||
NITO and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that NITO and ICL have been poorly correlated (+10% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that NITO and ICL's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To NITO | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NITO | 100% | +1.83% | ||
| ICL - NITO | 10% Poorly correlated | -0.66% | ||
| MULG - NITO | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LVRO - NITO | 8% Poorly correlated | -1.21% | ||
| NTR - NITO | 5% Poorly correlated | -2.00% | ||
| CBLUF - NITO | 3% Poorly correlated | +22.17% | ||
More | ||||