Advertisement
CDNAF vs CMEIF
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 CDNAF is a Hold and CMEIF is a Buy.
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).
CDNAF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileCMEIF’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).
- CDNAF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- CMEIF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 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.
CDNAF’s TA Score shows that 6 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CMEIF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CDNAF’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 4 bearish.
- CMEIF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 2 bearish.
Price Growth
CDNAF (@Specialty Stores) experienced а +1.36% price change this week, while CMEIF (@Automotive Aftermarket) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Specialty Stores industry was +0.80%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.18%, and the average quarterly price growth was +8.95%.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Automotive Aftermarket industry was +1.38%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.45%, and the average quarterly price growth was +0.97%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Specialty Stores (+0.80% weekly)The specialty stores sector includes companies dedicated to the sale of retail products focused on a single product category, such as clothing, carpet, books, or office supplies. A specialty store could face intense competition from big-box departmental chains, and therefore offering an adequate collection of the product type it specializes in is key in maintaining/growing its market.
@Automotive Aftermarket (+1.38% weekly)The Automotive Aftermarket consists of the manufacturing, remanufacturing, distribution, retailing, and installation of vehicle parts and accessories, after the sale of the automobile by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to the consumer. The aftermarket parts many not be manufactured by the OEM. According to a Technavio study, the US automotive parts aftermarket size is estimated to grow by USD 24.33 billion during 2018-2022 (CAGR 3%). Like many other industries, the automotive aftermarket is also being intensely penetrated by the digital boom. The online auto parts sales market is predicted to exceed $13B by 2020 (according to a study by Mirakl).
| CDNAF | CMEIF | CDNAF / CMEIF | |
| Capitalization | 6.91B | 363M | 1,904% |
| EBITDA | 2.03B | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 16.673 | -16.200 | -103% |
| P/E Ratio | 11.73 | 37.37 | 31% |
| Revenue | 16.7B | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | 1.19B | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 7.62B | N/A | - |
CDNAF | ||
|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 51 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 10 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 72 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 58 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 58 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 94 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 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.
| CDNAF | CMEIF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 72% | 2 days ago 29% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 55% | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 56% | 2 days ago 33% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 47% | 2 days ago 36% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 60% | 2 days ago 10% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 60% | 2 days ago 23% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 61% | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 7 days ago 60% | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 61% | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 57% | N/A |
Advertisement
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| PGRO | 42.52 | 0.01 | +0.02% |
| Putnam Focused Large Cap Growth ETF | |||
| MNRS | 28.85 | -0.10 | -0.36% |
| Grayscale Bitcoin Miners ETF | |||
| ISCB | 62.22 | -0.40 | -0.64% |
| iShares Morningstar Small-Cap ETF | |||
| CGW | 64.71 | -0.70 | -1.07% |
| Invesco S&P Global Water ETF | |||
| SATO | 20.88 | -0.35 | -1.65% |
| Invesco Alerian Galaxy Crypto Eco ETF | |||
CDNAF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CDNAF has been loosely correlated with PAG. These tickers have moved in lockstep 47% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CDNAF jumps, then PAG could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CDNAF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDNAF | 100% | -0.39% | ||
| PAG - CDNAF | 47% Loosely correlated | -0.14% | ||
| SAH - CDNAF | 47% Loosely correlated | +0.35% | ||
| AN - CDNAF | 44% Loosely correlated | +0.14% | ||
| KMX - CDNAF | 44% Loosely correlated | -0.33% | ||
| LAD - CDNAF | 43% Loosely correlated | -0.99% | ||
More | ||||
CMEIF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CMEIF and CZASF have been poorly correlated (+30% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CMEIF and CZASF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CMEIF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMEIF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CZASF - CMEIF | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FKRAF - CMEIF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CDNAF - CMEIF | 4% Poorly correlated | -0.39% | ||
| VRM - CMEIF | 3% Poorly correlated | -1.85% | ||
| ANCTF - CMEIF | 3% Poorly correlated | -0.40% | ||
More | ||||