CDEVF vs MHPC
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 CDEVF is a Hold and MHPC 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).
CDEVF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileMHPC’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CDEVF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- MHPC’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CDEVF (@Real Estate Development) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while MHPC (@Real Estate Development) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Real Estate Development industry was -2.78%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +10.00%, and the average quarterly price growth was +7.89%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Real Estate Development (-2.78% weekly)Activities range from the renovation and re-lease of existing buildings to the purchase of raw land and the sale of developed land or parcels to others. Demand for land development business is driven by GDP growth, employment rates, interest rates, and access to/cost of capital. For individual companies in this industry, proper cost estimation and successful bidding play critical roles in their profitability. Large companies could potentially have greater access to capital, while smaller companies can specialize in a specific geographic area or market niche. CBRE Group, VICI Properties Inc and Brookfield Property Partners L.P. are some of the large companies in this industry.
| CDEVF | MHPC | CDEVF / MHPC | |
| Capitalization | 5.05B | 13.1M | 38,527% |
| EBITDA | 2.24B | 54.7K | 4,100,548% |
| Gain YTD | -20.741 | -43.636 | 48% |
| P/E Ratio | 5.02 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 2.91B | 15.4M | 18,870% |
| Total Cash | 2.16B | 5.71M | 37,734% |
| Total Debt | 10.1B | 90.6M | 11,148% |
CDEVF | MHPC | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 93 Overvalued | 34 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 97 | 53 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 72 | 75 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 82 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 65 | 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.
MHPC's Valuation (34) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CDEVF (93). This means that MHPC’s stock grew somewhat faster than CDEVF’s over the last 12 months.
MHPC's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as CDEVF (100). This means that MHPC’s stock grew similarly to CDEVF’s over the last 12 months.
MHPC's SMR Rating (53) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CDEVF (97). This means that MHPC’s stock grew somewhat faster than CDEVF’s over the last 12 months.
CDEVF's Price Growth Rating (72) in the null industry is in the same range as MHPC (75). This means that CDEVF’s stock grew similarly to MHPC’s over the last 12 months.
CDEVF's P/E Growth Rating (82) in the null industry is in the same range as MHPC (100). This means that CDEVF’s stock grew similarly to MHPC’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 (%) |
CDEVF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CDEVF has been loosely correlated with MHPC. These tickers have moved in lockstep 47% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CDEVF jumps, then MHPC could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CDEVF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDEVF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MHPC - CDEVF | 47% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| HYSNF - CDEVF | 43% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| LLESF - CDEVF | 35% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| MITEF - CDEVF | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CHKGF - CDEVF | 17% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
MHPC and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, MHPC has been loosely correlated with CDEVF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 47% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if MHPC jumps, then CDEVF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MHPC | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MHPC | 100% | N/A | ||
| CDEVF - MHPC | 47% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| HYSNF - MHPC | 37% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| RGSG - MHPC | 34% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| LLESF - MHPC | 29% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| AYAAF - MHPC | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||