CBLUF vs SBMSF
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 Hold and SBMSF 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 whileSBMSF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CBLUF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- SBMSF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CBLUF (@Chemicals: Agricultural) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while SBMSF (@Chemicals: Agricultural) price change was -4.55% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Chemicals: Agricultural industry was -0.55%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -2.13%, and the average quarterly price growth was -10.40%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Chemicals: Agricultural (-0.55% 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 | SBMSF | CBLUF / SBMSF | |
| Capitalization | 1.15B | 88.4M | 1,304% |
| EBITDA | 3.25B | -4.81M | -67,544% |
| Gain YTD | 49.238 | -41.667 | -118% |
| P/E Ratio | 4.46 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 13.4B | 18.2K | 73,626,374% |
| Total Cash | 11.2B | 22.9M | 48,908% |
| Total Debt | 1.05B | N/A | - |
CBLUF | SBMSF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 36 | 85 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 3 Undervalued | 56 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 76 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 70 | 87 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 49 | 74 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 18 | 42 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 29 |
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 (3) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SBMSF (56). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SBMSF’s over the last 12 months.
CBLUF's Profit vs Risk Rating (76) in the null industry is in the same range as SBMSF (100). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew similarly to SBMSF’s over the last 12 months.
CBLUF's SMR Rating (70) in the null industry is in the same range as SBMSF (87). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew similarly to SBMSF’s over the last 12 months.
CBLUF's Price Growth Rating (49) in the null industry is in the same range as SBMSF (74). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew similarly to SBMSF’s over the last 12 months.
CBLUF's P/E Growth Rating (18) in the null industry is in the same range as SBMSF (42). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew similarly to SBMSF’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 (%) |
CBLUF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CBLUF and CGA 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 CGA's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CBLUF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBLUF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CGA - CBLUF | 21% Poorly correlated | -5.29% | ||
| SBMSF - CBLUF | 10% Poorly correlated | -4.55% | ||
| NITO - CBLUF | 3% Poorly correlated | +1.48% | ||
| YARIY - CBLUF | 3% Poorly correlated | +0.14% | ||
| LVRO - CBLUF | 2% Poorly correlated | +4.95% | ||
More | ||||
SBMSF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SBMSF and CBLUF have been poorly correlated (+10% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SBMSF and CBLUF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SBMSF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBMSF | 100% | -4.55% | ||
| CBLUF - SBMSF | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| YRAIF - SBMSF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| VRDR - SBMSF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| YARIY - SBMSF | 1% Poorly correlated | +0.14% | ||
| NUFMF - SBMSF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||