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.
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 0 TA indicator(s) are bullish while SBMSF’s TA Score has 5 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CBLUF’s TA Score: 0 bullish, 3 bearish.
- SBMSF’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 1 bearish.
Price Growth
CBLUF (@Chemicals: Agricultural) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while SBMSF (@Chemicals: Agricultural) price change was -19.70% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Chemicals: Agricultural industry was +0.30%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +13.82%, and the average quarterly price growth was -3.35%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Chemicals: Agricultural (+0.30% 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 | 15.904 | -15.766 | -101% |
| 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 | 42 | 65 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 2 Undervalued | 85 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 74 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 70 | 88 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 43 | 53 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 12 | 48 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 30 |
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 (2) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for SBMSF (85). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew significantly faster than SBMSF’s over the last 12 months.
CBLUF's Profit vs Risk Rating (74) 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 (88). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew similarly to SBMSF’s over the last 12 months.
CBLUF's Price Growth Rating (43) in the null industry is in the same range as SBMSF (53). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew similarly to SBMSF’s over the last 12 months.
CBLUF's P/E Growth Rating (12) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SBMSF (48). This means that CBLUF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SBMSF’s over the last 12 months.
| CBLUF | SBMSF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 16 days ago 40% | 16 days ago 73% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 16 days ago 36% | 16 days ago 81% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 16 days ago 66% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | 16 days ago 72% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 16 days ago 21% | 16 days ago 83% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 16 days ago 20% | 16 days ago 85% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | 24 days ago 56% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 16 days ago 64% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 16 days ago 9% | N/A |
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% | N/A | ||
| ENFY - CBLUF | 21% Poorly correlated | +15.66% | ||
| SBMSF - CBLUF | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NITO - CBLUF | 3% Poorly correlated | -3.29% | ||
| YARIY - CBLUF | 3% Poorly correlated | -0.61% | ||
| LVRO - CBLUF | 2% Poorly correlated | +15.69% | ||
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% | N/A | ||
| CBLUF - SBMSF | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| YRAIF - SBMSF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| VRDR - SBMSF | 2% Poorly correlated | +9.77% | ||
| YARIY - SBMSF | 1% Poorly correlated | -0.61% | ||
| NUFMF - SBMSF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||