CDMGF vs FREVS
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 CDMGF is a Hold and FREVS 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).
CDMGF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileFREVS’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CDMGF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- FREVS’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CDMGF (@Real Estate Investment Trusts) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while FREVS (@Real Estate Investment Trusts) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Real Estate Investment Trusts industry was -2.03%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -4.17%, and the average quarterly price growth was +6.27%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Real Estate Investment Trusts (-2.03% weekly)A real estate investment trust (REIT) is a company any that owns, and in most cases, operates, income-producing real estate – ranging from office and apartment buildings to warehouses, hospitals, shopping centers, hotels and timberlands. Some REITs are involved in financing real estate. Equity REITs invest in and own properties, while mortgage REITs own and invest in property mortgages. REITs are required by law to pay out at least 90% of their annual taxable income (excluding capital gains) to shareholders in the form of dividends. Some REITs could be more cyclical than others; for example, when an economy is undergoing a recession, hotel REITs could be more vulnerable, compared to say healthcare REIT given that healthcare needs are less likely to depend on economic cycles. American Tower Corporation, Prologis, Inc. and Crown Castle International Corp are some of the biggest REIT companies in the U.S.
| CDMGF | FREVS | CDMGF / FREVS | |
| Capitalization | 3.1B | 142M | 2,182% |
| EBITDA | -260.3M | 11M | -2,366% |
| Gain YTD | -21.622 | 2.668 | -810% |
| P/E Ratio | 47.39 | 158.73 | 30% |
| Revenue | 1.82B | 27.9M | 6,523% |
| Total Cash | 697M | 35.7M | 1,952% |
| Total Debt | 5.46B | 137M | 3,983% |
CDMGF | FREVS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 3 Undervalued | 61 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 36 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 92 | 86 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 50 | 54 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 3 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 65 | 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.
CDMGF's Valuation (3) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for FREVS (61). This means that CDMGF’s stock grew somewhat faster than FREVS’s over the last 12 months.
FREVS's Profit vs Risk Rating (36) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CDMGF (100). This means that FREVS’s stock grew somewhat faster than CDMGF’s over the last 12 months.
FREVS's SMR Rating (86) in the null industry is in the same range as CDMGF (92). This means that FREVS’s stock grew similarly to CDMGF’s over the last 12 months.
CDMGF's Price Growth Rating (50) in the null industry is in the same range as FREVS (54). This means that CDMGF’s stock grew similarly to FREVS’s over the last 12 months.
CDMGF's P/E Growth Rating (3) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for FREVS (100). This means that CDMGF’s stock grew significantly faster than FREVS’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 (%) |
CDMGF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CDMGF has been closely correlated with CHLWF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 68% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if CDMGF jumps, then CHLWF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CDMGF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDMGF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CHLWF - CDMGF | 68% Closely correlated | N/A | ||
| FREVS - CDMGF | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| UTGPF - CDMGF | 21% Poorly correlated | +2.77% | ||
| CPAMF - CDMGF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BYLOF - CDMGF | 4% Poorly correlated | -3.72% | ||
More | ||||
FREVS and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that FREVS and CHLWF have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that FREVS and CHLWF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To FREVS | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FREVS | 100% | N/A | ||
| CHLWF - FREVS | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CDMGF - FREVS | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DDHRF - FREVS | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| EFRTF - FREVS | 6% Poorly correlated | -3.11% | ||
| FRIVF - FREVS | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||